A Zeitgeist Movement:

Exploring Global Consciousness through Collective Action

By William Dixon

Hemis: 420144

University of Portsmouth

School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies

April 2011

Dissertation submitted in part-fulfilment

For the requirements of

the BSc (Hons) Sociology Degree

 Abstract

This dissertation is a sociological enquiry into ongoing processes of social change.

Specifically, this deductive research will explore the changing nature of emergent

forms of „consciousnesses‟ based around the world being a singular place.

Extensive literature based research contextualizes contemporary social

frameworks of understanding and outlines how the production of „reality‟, of ideas

and consciousness, is dissembedded from the localizing restraints once imposed

on human and information movement.

This dissertation will not argue that a global consensus has been reached, but

rather that multiple forms of global collective identity and action are now apparent

and can be seen to emerge and operate in both globally interlinked and networked

social space as well as local conditions of being. Adopting a methodological

approach based in framing perspectives, attention is paid to the changing nature of

collective action. Frame analysis is applied to a global social movement case

study with the result of illuminating one such social and global consciousness.

The work serves to open new areas for enquiry and position sociological thinking

as a means to explore new societal landscapes.

2 of 62
 Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Table of Contents 3
Table of figures 4

Introduction 6

Social Change and Sociology 9

Local Connections 12

Global Interactions 16

Collective Frames of Action 24

Theorizing Social Movements 29

The Zeitgeist Movement: Case study 39

Conclusions 48

Appendices 51

1. Zeitgeist Moving Forward – Press release 51

2. Countries with members 54
3. The Zeitgeist Movement Materials 56
4. Venus Project Design 57

Bibliography 58

Statement of originality 62

3 of 62
 Tables and Figures

Title Page Description

Figure 1. 43 The Zeitgeist Movement Global Membership.

Figure 2. 48 Fresco‟s Circular City.

4 of 62
“Only by scanning with an open mind the new historical landscape will
we be able to find shining paths, dark abysses, and muddled
breakthroughs into the new society emerging from current crises.”

Manuel Castells, 2010b, p.74.

5 of 62
 Introduction

This undergraduate dissertation is an exercise of sociological enquiry. It has at its

core, a focus on social change; the movements, changes, and transitions that

accompany forms of social life. The study will pay particular attention to the patterns

of social interconnectivity that continue to spread across our worlds, both in the

physical sense, and the accompanying perceived „realities‟ (Goffman, 1974) of our

„imagined worlds‟ (Appadurai, 2008). This dissertation will investigate and promote

the notion, that the “production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness,” if still

“interwoven” with human “material activity” and “intercourse” (Marx and Engels,

1975, p. 65-66), is therefore now a production enacted and achieved on global scales.

The world is increasingly seen as a “singular place”, and, in many academic political

and social arenas, there is talk of an emergent “global consciousness” (Lechner and

Boli, 2008, p.2).

The focus of the dissertation is on the historical and sociological contextualization of

a new “historical landscape” (Castells, 2010b, p.74) and proclaimed “global

consciousness” (Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.2). Literature reviews will be used to

track the disembedding of collective consciousness from its early localised

constraints, then recognising in its place, the fluid and interconnected means by which

contemporary social formations emerge.

The research will thus take a “deductive” approach, beginning with theories of social

change and globalization, and then exercise them “to explain certain observations”

(Gilbert, 2001, p.27). In this instance a global social movement case study will be

6 of 62
provided to illuminate and explore said theories of “global consciousness” (Lechner

and Boli, 2008, p.2). Conclusions are drawn around basic observations between the

discussed theory of global consciousness and the observed social movement.

Suggestions for further research will also be included.

Gilbert highlights “three major ingredients in social research”, namely; “the

construction of theory”, “the design methods for gathering data”, and the actual

“collection of data” (2001, p.22). This dissertation will follow a similar route. The

preponderance of discussion will be directed at literature reviews of relevant theory,

including firm attention to methodology and then a short deductive case study to

compliment previously presented theories. All primary research is literature and

document based hence ethical considerations are largely omitted.

Following this introduction, chapter 1 will introduce the wider topic of social change

and outline key sociological overtones. Chapter 2 will provide sociological theory

that seeks to establish the characteristics of early pre-modern social forms. Chapter 3

will address changes in these patterns and move towards a theory of global

interconnectivity.

After widening the scope and potential of global interaction, chapter 4 will introduce

theories of collective action frames, specifically moving towards social movements,

or collective action, which is seen to mirror wider patterns of social change and

provide loci of study. Chapter 5 will further introduce and discuss the research

methods used in the study of collective action, in turn selecting and highlighting the

particular method to be used in this instance.

7 of 62
Chapter 6, the penultimate section of this work, will provide a social movement case

study which serves to example the theories presented. Conclusions will be drawn as

to the congruency of theory and data, with a focus on suggestions for further research.

8 of 62
 1.

Social Change and Sociology

The departure point for this dissertation is some “436,000 to 806,000” years ago, a

departure point at which best estimates locate the origin of the human species. This

departure, in the form of a “transition”, saw the human species evolve, forging its own

path divergent to that of its shared ancestors. The exact location of this transition is as

yet unknown; moreover, due to the historical distance at which this transition

occurred, it is not known whether it was a “single-origin” or “multi-origin”

evolutionary transition (Wills, 1995, p. 593). For the purposes of this dissertation, it

is not important how or where this particular transition occurred, but rather what

occurred after its beginnings, and, to an extent, throughout the entirety of human

history.

Since the birth/s of “mitochondrial eve” (Wills, 1995, p. 593) the human species has

grown and evolved to occupy all corners of the Earth; from “hunters and wanderers”

(Hinkle, 1936, p. 137) to the inhabitants of complex modern societies; humans

continue to explore and navigate the world, both physically and mentally, in one

direction or another. Humans are, “by design or default… on the move” (Bauman,

1998, p.2). This movement of people, along with all that has accompanied it, is of

special interest to “historians and sociologists”, who, for Appadurai, “have long been

aware that the world has been a congeries of large-scale interactions for many

centuries” (2008, p. 95). Evidence can be seen of these historical interactions; from

the early signs of „culture‟ to emerge in “prehistoric man” (Hinkle, 1936, p. 137)

through to the contemporary studies of human behaviour; examples of differing

9 of 62
material and social structures come to the fore. Just as humans are on the move, so

too are the contours of their existences, and thus we see, retrospectively, a species

with a history of change and transition. These interactions, changes, and transitions to

be highlighted, are an overarching theme running throughout this dissertation and will

be addressed in the chapters to follow.

It is important to highlight at this stage, that the interactions, changes and transitions

addressed in this dissertation, are primarily social in nature, and that this dissertation

is, first and foremost, an exercise of sociological enquiry. Sociology, as a discipline,

has at its core the ability to “defamiliarize the familiar”, to open up new areas of

attention (Bauman and May, 2001, p.10). This is achieved through awareness that to

understand any matter of individual concern or “trouble”, one must first locate and

understand the wider context or “public issue” in which that trouble is located.

“Troubles”, explains C. Wright-Mills, “occur within the character of the individual,”

and they have to do with “those limited areas of social life of which he is directly and

personally aware.” “Issues”, alternatively, “have to do with matters that transcend the

local environments of the individual” (p.8, 2000). “Social facts” are phenomenon that

exist beyond the individual (Durkheim, p.50, 1982), and thus by moving away from

individual value based perceptions and adopting what Weber termed a “value-free”

approach with “scientific integrity” (in Berger, p.15, 1966), it is possible to “open our

eyes to new horizons beyond our immediate experiences… to widen scope” (Bauman

and May, 2001, p.11).

The fore mentioned human movements, the interactions changes and transitions, are

to be viewed sociologically. If then, focus is on one particular contemporary social

10 of 62
phenomenon in this dissertation, it first needs to be located and contextualised within

its wider historical and social placement. It is hoped that this process will serve to

illuminate matters beyond that of individual perception, and to produce,

sociologically, evidence of continued social change and transition.

11 of 62
 2.

Local Connections

In adopting a sociological approach, aimed primarily toward the understanding of the

fore mentioned movements, changes and transitions of humans, it is necessary to

highlight some key historical features. In returning to our initial departure point, the

early happenings of mankind, observations can be made as to the effects of geo-

physical conditions. Zygmunt Bauman succinctly achieves this, describing how

“geophysical factors”, or the “natural and artificial” borders of populations, served as

“speed limits” to early life (Bauman, 1998, p 12).

Bauman suggests that the “constraints imposed on the freedom of movement” served

to “separate” population and cultural identities, thus providing clear distinctions

between „inside‟ and „outside‟ (1998, p.12). Moreover, the “inside‟ vs. „outside‟,

„here‟ vs. „out there,‟ „near‟ vs. „far away” oppositions, denoted the extent to which

the “surrounding world” had been tamed, domesticated, or familiarised (p.13). In

essence, Bauman is detailing how early communities were homogenised and

contained. The shared perspectives or familiarities of such communities, gained

solely through the means of wetware, generated information and messages that served

to “reiterate and reinforce” each other (Bauman, 1998, p.16). Giddens also reflects

that “all forms of social life are… constituted by actors‟ knowledge of them”, where

knowing how to be “is intrinsic to the conventions which are drawn upon and

reproduced by human activity” (1991, p.38). Communities were, for the

preponderance of human history, contained and spatially divided geographically;

what people were able to „draw on‟ was restricted to the local. Congruently Giddens

12 of 62
highlights that in pre-modern societies “the spatial dimensions of social life are…

dominated by „presence‟ – by localised activities” (1991, p.18). The important point

here, for the purposes of this study, is to acknowledge that what people were aware

of, the worlds they lived in and made sense of, their reality, was restricted to what

they could see, hear, touch, feel and remember. Their world, or what they were “alive

to” (Goffman, 1974, p.8) was the product of shared physical perspective and action,

of wetware, and the restricting time/distance of the outside, out there and far away

worlds.

Common Ground

To introduce the notion of consciousness then, in the simplest form of what people

are conscious of and hence the basis for action; attention can be paid to the localised

means by which it was formed. Erving Goffman, introducing his text Frame Analysis

(1974), begins with a discussion of the nature of reality. His aim is to locate in

society “frameworks of understanding” that are used to make “sense of events”

(p.10), or more generally, how “the organization of experience” is constituted (p.11).

Albert Cohen, metaphorically, clarifies this notion:

“Our beliefs about what is, what is possible and what consequences flow from what
actions do not necessarily correspond to what is „objectively‟ true. „The facts‟ never
simply stare us in the face. We see them always through a glass, and that glass
consists of the interests, preconceptions, stereotypes and values we bring to the
situation. This glass is our frame of reference” (2005, p.51, emphasis added).

It is positioned, that the frames of reference in pre-modern societies; be it agrarian or

hunter wanderer, through to early industrial society, were frames based on local

information and constraints; frames constructed through wetware. Historically,

evidence can be seen of the development of differing frames of reference at different

locations on the planet. More specifically, different collectives of beliefs and values

can be seen to develop at differing geographical and historical locales. The important

13 of 62
point here is that these “frameworks or schemata of interpretation” (Goffman, 1974,

p.21) developed and perpetuated by communities, were formed and pertained to

localised contexts. Exchange of information between communities was subject to the

fore mentioned “speed limits” and hence “the separation and the maintenance of

collective identities” (Bauman, 1998, p.12).

Distant Neighbours

A prominent study to highlight these separated identities is Max Weber‟s The

Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism (1967). Although for Weber the focus

is on the development of one particular social mode, Capitalism, he does so by

contrasting and comparing different societal belief systems, mainly Religious systems

to emerge and pertain to different population groupings. For Max Weber; religion

“swept through the great communities like a firebrand, welding them together” (pg.

155, 1993).

The focus here is not on Religion, but on the homogenised and localised frames

developed by historically isolated communities, or as Bauman termed, separated

“identities” (1998, p.12). Religion was simply an emergent theme found to

accompany such frames of reference. Brief attention can be paid to how such

different religious themes were generated by turning to the writings of Marx and

Engels, who highlight that the “production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness,

is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of

men” (1975, p. 65-66). The early material activity of man, as discussed, was

occurring in isolation from his neighbour, separated or restricted by geophysical

14 of 62
factors. The production of ideas, conceptions and consciousnesses, often religious in

form, occurred in different locations and was each a product of wetware. For Engels:

“All religion …is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men‟s minds of those
external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial
forces assume the form of supernatural forces. In the beginnings of history it was the
forces of nature which were first so reflected, and which in the course of further
evolution underwent the most manifold and varied personifications among the
various peoples” (1975, p. 128).

For Bauman, ethical codes, mainly Religious in form, were designed to give the actor

“priori certainty” as to what should and should not be done (1995, p 4). Giddens also

makes reference to traditional proviso of a “framework for action” (2002, p 41). If a

collective or individual “frame of reference” is to form from “Beliefs… interests,

preconceptions, stereotypes and values” (A. Cohen, 2005, p51), and to subsequently

determine “subjective involvement” in events (Goffman, 1974, p.10), examples of

historical collective frames mainly come in the form of “religious cosmologies” and

“tradition” (Giddens, 1991, p.102).

Local Consciousnesses

Subtracting the religious associations, attempt has been made to highlight the nature

of early human movements. These early communities or separate identities have been

outlined as restricted in interaction, with homogenising and reinforcing

characteristics. Collective identities were established and maintained through

wetware, from which, multiple but separated and localised frameworks of reference

emerge; containing beliefs, values, conceptions and ultimately localized forms of

consciousness.

15 of 62
 3.

Global Interactions

Moving Out

Many key sociological texts (Weber, 1993; Giddens, 1991; Bauman, 1998; Sennett,

1999) address the nature of pre modern societies as being linear in essence and

rationalized according to local homogenized cultures. When focus is paid to early

shifts in this aspect of social being, homogenized societies can be seen to experience

what Bauman termed a „reversal‟ of wetware; „separate identities‟ having their speed

limits removed. This is effective to both the individual (Bauman, 1998, p 12) and the

contained communities, which began to move outward; “the local became the

national”, the national becoming the global (Bauman, 1998, p 17). Here, instead of

information serving to reinforce and homogenise, different communities are exposed

to each other, and hence different messages appear, each “clamouring for attention”

(1998, p. 16). As Bauman details; the “implosion” of communication time means that

“space and spatial markers cease to matter” (1998, p 13). Likewise for Giddens, the

“separation of time and space” is fundamental to the “dynamism of modernity” (p.16,

1991), where social relations of “individuals or groups” are ordered and reordered “in

the light of continual inputs of knowledge” (p.17).

Technological developments can be seen to have had large effects on communication

and interaction between global communities. Dicken surmises the history of transport

developments until „recent‟ times:

“For most of human history, the speed and efficiency of transportation were
staggeringly low and the costs of overcoming the friction of distance prohibitively
high. Movement over land was especially slow and difficult before the development

16 of 62
 of the railways. Indeed, even as late as the early nineteenth century, the means of
transportation were not really very different from those prevailing in biblical times”
(2007, p.79).

Dicken charts the actual increase in speed achieved by new technologies. When

travel was enabled by sail boat or horse drawn coaches, circa 1500 – 1840, the best

average speed was 10 mph. A significant development was that of steam power from

the 1850s seeing a jump to 65 mph for locomotives and 36mph for steam ships.

Speed was again seen to increase greatly with the advent of propeller and jet aircraft

post 1950, seeing transport speeds exceed 600mph (2007, p. 81).

Faster than Feet

A significant development in the 20th century was the point where information could

be transported independently of its human carriers, as Bauman suggests, “faster than

the travel of bodies” (1998, p. 14). The progress of satellite and wireless technologies

since the 1960s have contributed to a revolution in global communications, where

messages or data can be sent and received around the world “virtually

simultaneously” (Dicken, 2007, p.83). As Henderson and Castells stress:

“The new telecommunications technologies are the electronic highways of the

informational age, equivalent to the role played by railway systems in the process of
industrialization” (1987, p. 6).

To refer to Bauman‟s sentiments of the „great role‟ of information technology and the

emergence of the World Wide Web (1998, p 15), attention can be paid to the often

used term of „interconnectedness‟ with regard to globalization. This increased

presence of global connections can go some way to explaining why the use of the

word „globalization‟ gained ground in the 1980s (Martell, 2010, p. 1) parallel to the

17 of 62
rise of „the network‟ and the World Wide Web. As Smart denotes, one conception is

that this increase in connectedness or “stretching”, has led to an “intensification of

worldwide social relations” (2005, p. 1).

Many theorists have outlined and described what they see as the key features of

contemporary social modes and how these interconnections are forming, and,

although this dissertation is not to be primarily concerned with alignment with any

particular theoretical model; acknowledgment of them is important. As stated,

“historians and sociologists have long been aware that the world has been a congeries

of large-scale interactions for many centuries” (Appadurai, 2008, p. 95) and this is

reflected in the literature. From the already touched on theories of Gidden‟s

radicalised Modernity (1991; 1991b) and Bauman‟s Liquid and fragmented

characteristics‟ of post-modernity (1995; 2005), to theories pertaining to the Post

Industrial nature of Society (Bell, 1973), the Information Age (Castells, 2010), and

numerous debates around homogenization, heterogeneity and hybridity (Holton,

2000); there is no shortage of perspectives to address the multifaceted dimensions of

contemporary social life. Indeed, as Giddens notes, knowledge of the world

“contributes to its unstable or mutable character” (1991, p.45) and where once we

“appeared” to have answers, now, “we are left with questions” (p.49). Referring to

the nature of humans as being by default on “the move” (Bauman, 1998, p.2), the

changes transitions and movements of people can be seen to be continually changing,

as is our very knowledge about them.

18 of 62
 Floating and Fixed

As a premise then, this dissertation will proceed simply by stating that modern forms

of identity, or consciousness, if again seen as “interwoven with the material activity

and the material intercourse of men” (Marx and Engels, 1975, p. 65-66), are no longer

confined to local contexts. Contemporary “frameworks or schemata of interpretation”

(Goffman, 1974, p.21) are constructed through “disembedded” social systems, which,

essentially, have been lifted out from their “local contexts of interaction” and

restructured “across indefinite spans of time-space” (Giddens, 1991, p.21).

“Modern organisations are able to connect the local and the global in ways which
would have been unthinkable in more traditional societies and in so doing routinely
affect the lives of many millions of people” (Giddens, 1991, p.20).

At this stage it is important to clarify that the processes leading to this state of

interconnectedness have not occurred equally. More specifically, if the term

globalization is to be used in reference to an increasing global interconnectivity, then

globalization has not happened to everybody, at least, not in the same way. It is

essential to stress, that although a reversal of wetware has occurred, and, to further

use Bauman‟s metaphor of the “speed limits” (1998, p.12) to human movement being

removed; that this removal has not been universally experienced. As Bauman details,

with regards to the movement of „elites‟, those who do not have ability to pay for

securities are simply „fenced off‟ (1998, p.21) or as Giddens states:

“[W]e must recognise the dialectical character of globalisation and also the influence
of processes of uneven development. Loss of autonomy on the part of some states or
groups of states has often gone along with an increase in that of others” (1991, p.67).

Focus on only certain aspects of the processes attributed to globalization can be

misgiving, furthermore, examining only technological changes can be critiqued as

19 of 62
narrowly deterministic, failing to see the many different aspects of the world that are

now at play on each other and the effects they have had. Specifically, when debate

over homogenization, heterogeneity and hybridity (Holton, 2000) is had, focus is

often on one element of globalization or modernity and not the multitude of

influences that intersect.

Giddens notes a “tendency” for sociological work to “look for a single institutional

nexus in modern societies”. Furthermore, for Giddens, it is a “mistaken” premise to

reduce the institutional dimensions of modernity to a singular mode. Capitalism and

industrialism are seen to both be involved in modernity, one is not simply part of the

other (1991, p.55). Giddens expands to include four institutional dimensions to

Modernity: Capitalism, Industrialism, Military Power, and Surveillance (1991, p.59).

Another multidimensional model of globalization is that put forward by Appadurai.

Here it is shown that the interconnectivity of modern social life is also not the

function of a sole determinant, but rather that a multitude of flows intersect and play

on each other in different ways. Appadurai outlines them as ethnoscapes,

mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes (2008, p.98).

Global Consciousness

The movements, changes, and transitions discussed, from the early restricted motions

of pre modern societies, towards an era of interconnectivity, have seen the world

becoming a “single place”. As discussed, this is not to say that all has become alike,

but rather “local events bear the imprint of global processes” in some degree or

20 of 62
another (Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.3). As mentioned, the institutions or flows that

comes to play on modern societies (Giddens, 1991; Appadurai, 2008) mean that even

if people are not aware of the “larger structures” in play, “their everyday life is

nevertheless embedded in a world culture that transcends their village, town, or

country” (Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.2).

As highlighted in the initial chapters of this work, early pre modern societies were

characterised by localised restraints, geophysical factors and wetware, homogeneity

was the product of shared perspectives and frameworks of interpretation built on

localised activity. Contemporary social formations, in an era of global

interconnectivity, have seen these restraints lifted and are now able to draw on a

multitude of global influences in the understanding of their “realities”. More

specifically, the “organisation of experience” or construction of “frameworks of

reference” (Goffman, 1974, p.11) is freed from local constraints and achieved through

a perspective that is, for some at least, global in scope. As Giddens highlights, the

individual is faced with questions of “what to do? How to act? Who to be?” For

Giddens these are central questions for people living in „late modernity,‟ furthermore,

these questions are automatically answered through behavioural or discursive means

(Giddens, 1991b, p 70). This work will look at such discourse and behaviour, with

specific regard to globally organised social experience.

There now seems present an emergent one “world culture and consciousness” where,

in many ways the world is seen and understood as a “single place” (Lechner and Boli,

2008, p.2). Again, this is not to suggest all is becoming one, but simply that new

21 of 62
cultures, institutions, identities, and forms of consciousness are now being formed and

maintained through non localised means, around seeing the world or planet as a

singular unit. The Globalization debate “expresses a common global consciousness,

though not, of course, a global consensus” (Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.10).

The Network Society

Although this work will not cling to any particular theoretical model, Castells

description of The Network Society (2010) is of use for understanding the multitude

of flows that play on modern social forms. For Castells, this new kind of “social

structure” is formed from “networks in all the key dimensions of social organization

and social practice”. Key, but by no means a sole determinant of these forms, is the

development of “horizontal communication networks” (p.xviii). This sees a shift

from the linear nature of pre modern societies (Castells, 2010; Weber, 1993; Giddens,

1991; Bauman, 1998; Sennett, 1999), to an increasing linked and interconnected

world where “horizontal networks of interactive communication… connect the local

and the global” through integrated forms of media (Castells, 2010, p.xxvii). As

Giddens also clearly states, modern local communities are not “saturated”

environments of “familiar, taken for granted meanings, but in some large part a

locally-situated expression of distanciated relations” (1991, p.109), the local and the

global are “inextricably intertwined” (p.108).

It is beyond the scope or purpose of this work to highlight all possible ways in which

people are affected by these new forms of social organisation, or to cover the

22 of 62
multitude of flows that are at play on groups or individuals. Indeed, as this piece

continues one such example will be studied in detail with the express aim of

illuminating one form of social framework to utilise this dissembedded means of

social organisation. Indeed, who and where the individual actors are, and, how they

form in this dissembedded global space will form part of this enquiry.

23 of 62
 4.

Collective Frames of Action

Global Frameworks

As discussed and mirrored in much literature, although the movements changes and

transitions leading to contemporary forms of life have not reached any global

“consensus”, there does present a theme of “global consciousness” (Lechner and Boli,

2008, p.10). There now exists, in contrast to the previously noted localised

“frameworks of reference” (Goffman, 1974, p.11); “global linkages, global

institutions, and global values” (Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.3), and, as world societies

interact, “individuals become conscious of being enveloped in global networks,

subject to global forces, governed by global rules” (p.4). Again, if a collective or

individual “frame of reference” is to form from “Beliefs… interests, preconceptions,

stereotypes and values” (A. Cohen, 2005, p51), and to subsequently determine

“subjective involvement” in events (Goffman, 1974, p.10), then in the contemporary

world these frames and involvements are global in scope.

Appadurai highlights the notion of “imagined worlds”, in that the global flows, or

“scapes”, are “fluid and irregular” in their relation to each other. More specifically,

that as different sorts of “actors” navigate these global flows, the “imagined worlds”

are the largely perspective based “constructs” that result from differing “angle[s] of

vision” held by individuals or collectives (Appadurai, 2008, p.98). This again bears

resonance with Goffman‟s earlier discussion of the nature of “reality” and the

perspective based means by which one constructs a “framework of understanding” in

order to “make sense of events” (1974, p.10). Common also to the notions of both

24 of 62
Goffman and Appadurai is that these frameworks or worlds, logically, do not pertain

only to the individual but are the joint property of collective “groupings” and

“communities.” In fact, for Appadurai, the individual is the “last locus” of these

perspective based constructs; for these worlds are “navigated by agents who both

experience and constitute larger formations” (Appadurai, 2008, p.98). Looking at

these larger formations, Goffman identifies what he calls “primary” frameworks,

modes of understanding employed by people toward the perception and identification

of events. A “schemata of interpretation” (1974, p.21) or way “to make sense” (p.10)

of the world is utilised.

As with Goffman‟s study, this dissertation is concerned with locating “frameworks of

understanding” (1974, p.10) or “perspectival constructs” (Appadurai, 2008, p.98) used

by actors to make “sense of events” (Goffman, 1974, p.10). Furthermore, this work

has as its primary concern, frameworks located in an era of global interconnectivity,

in the era of The Network Society (Castells, 2010).

A History of Protest

To focus attention toward specific collective frameworks found with in the network

society, attention can be paid to „social movements‟, described by McCarthy as

“ongoing collective efforts to bring about consequential social change” (1997, p.244).

Again, maintaining a historical approach means understanding contemporary social

movements in relation to their larger contextual setting. Feixa et al. (2009) set out to

describe how social movements have evolved over the years, initially discussing „old‟

25 of 62
and „new‟ social movements. „Old social movements‟ are said to have risen alongside

“industrial society… perceived as masculine, adult and class-based struggles” (p.423).

Located in the nineteenth century; „old social movements‟ bear resemblance to the

struggles detailed by Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto (1998). Similarly,

Feixa et al. detail “the revolutionary wave of 1948” as taking the old social movement

form, alongside “the Paris Commune and Soviet revolution,” These struggles were

defined by “concrete boarders of class, nation and social condition” (2009, p.426).

„New social movements‟ are said to have developed in “North America and Europe

after World War II.” These struggles tended to involve “identity-based criteria”, such

as “generation, gender, sexual orientation … [and] marginalized communities”. For

Feixa et al., new social movements are said to be predominantly conceived as “youth

and gender-based movements”. Student movements in 1960s Berkeley, Paris, Rome

and New York are described as „foundational moments‟ (2009, p.426).

Having outlined the nature of „old‟ and „new‟ social movements, Feixa et al.

introduce the contemporary notion of a „New, New‟ Social movement. This new

form is said to straddle the “frontier of physical and virtual space” at the turn of the

„new millennium‟. They are detailed to have emerged in response to the rise of global

„informational capitalism‟ (p. 426), and, as Feixa et al. outline, are said to operate in

the „globally networked space‟ identical to that which the „neo-liberal system‟ they

oppose also functions through. „New, New‟ Social movements „comprise a wide field

of individuals‟ operating through a decentralized network that is flexible and strong.

Importantly, this „decentralization‟ constitutes a „localized internationalism‟, where

26 of 62
activists link their „locally routed troubles‟ to an international movement. This is

referred to as „Glocality‟ (2009, p. 427).

„New, New‟ Social Movements have emerged since the implementation of these new

technologies, indeed they can be seen as evolving with them. Contemporary

Sociological questions arise as to the nature of such interconnected communities;

more specifically to the frame of reference or “schemata of interpretation” they

present or identify with (Goffman, 1974, p. 21). If „New, New‟ Social Movements

are Global movements, then questions as to the nature of global collective expression

can be researched, both from the perspective of the sociologist, and the global citizen.

Cohen and Kennedy highlight that until now, social movements have mainly been

theorized by sociologists on a „nation-state‟ level, largely due to the „constraints‟

making „global activity difficult‟ (2007, p.445). As discussed, and echoed by Cohen

and Kennedy, advances on several fronts have enabled effective global

communications and provide „good reasons‟ to „operate transnationally‟.

Furthermore, social movements can be „better equipped‟ to utilise global functioning;

detachment from national territories or interests enables among many freedoms, the

ability to “cooperate and generate alternative ideas and solutions more easily than

states” (Cohen and Kennedy, 2007, p.446).

It is with this rational, that the study of a „New, new social movement‟ was chosen, as

a means to explore new collective voices in an age of increased interconnectedness

and global activity. The case study will be analyzed to determine its „collective frame

of reference.‟ Benford and Snow detail the concept of “frame” as deriving from the

27 of 62
theories of Goffman (1974); again, denoting a “schemata of interpretation,” a way to

“locate, perceive, identify, and label occurrences” in life “and the world at large”

(Benford and Snow, 2000, p.614).

It is proposed that the central aim of this dissertation, and what this literature review

has provided rational for; is that social change can be addressed through conducting

empirical research on collective action frames. Specifically, that as a site for struggle

and social change, „new, new social movement‟ frame analysis can provide insight to

emergent global consciousnesses, therefore of human interests that transcend the local

and speak of global shared interests.

“A couple of hundred years ago we had reason to rise from the level of local
community to the then not-yet-imagined community of the state, of the nation. Now,
we have to make another step, a giant leap as a matter of fact – to rise to the level of
humanity as such” (Bauman, In Franklin, 2003, p.215).

28 of 62
 5.

Theorizing Social Movements

Methodology

The noted developments of social movements can be seen to fit the larger pattern of

social change discussed in this work. Specifically, in early modern times, social

movements can be seen to develop and operate in localised forms, then, as discussed,

the gradual development of global interconnectivity has led to the disembedded and

networked form found in many contemporary social movements. Besides this clear

resonance with larger overarching sociological theory, there exists “a proliferation of

research on social movements” (Carty, 2011, p.1), specifically with regard to the

„New, New‟ Social movements mentioned (Feixa et al., 2009) the “emergence of new

information technologies” has strongly influenced this research (Carty, 2011, p.1).

Before this work proceeds to study one particular social movement and contribute to

the fore mentioned research, a brief review of methods and concepts used in existing

theory will help provide direction and clarity for this particular piece of research. As

the “theoretical” models that are used to study social movements have been developed

and supported by evidence, discussions of “collective behaviour” have advanced

(Carty, 2011, p.19). In order for this singular case study to maximise its potential,

effort will be made to utilise the most developed and appropriate methodology

available.

The dominant theoretical perspectives used to study social movements include

“traditional theories of collective behaviour” such as “political process” and “resource

mobilization.” More recently developed models include culturally orientated themes

29 of 62
such as “framing” perspectives and collective identity (Carty, 2011, p.7; see also,

Porta and Diani, 1999; McCarthy, 1997; Bedford and Snow, 2000). To provide

contextual rational for the chosen methodology, these perspectives will be outlined

only briefly before continuing to detail the approach to be used in this case study.

Collective Behaviour Theory

Carty details that Sociologists in the “first half of the twentieth century” theorised

social movements “as random occurrences, deviant-based, and emotionally-charged

responses among aggrieved individuals to unsatisfactory situations and conditions.”

The main motivation for social movements to occur were “grievances” and largely

seen to emerge in those “who were not fully integrated into society.” Theories of

“structural strain and relative deprivation” addressed this (Carty, 2011, p.8).

Developments in this theoretical perspective were seen to originate from the “Chicago

School,” where “analysis of collective behaviour” was developed as a “specialist field

of sociology”. Contrasting to the dominant theories put forward by “collective

psychology”, attention was paid to “situations of rapid change in social structures and

prescriptions”, specifically, to the conditions that pushed “individuals to search for

new patterns of social organization (Porta and Diani, 1999, p.5).”

Relative to the overarching theme of this dissertation, is the notion that “collective

behaviour” theory is concerned with “change”, and, in particular, social movements

are seen as “both an integral part of the normal functioning of society and the

expression of a wider process of transformation” (Porta and Diani, 1999, p.5).

30 of 62
 Resource Mobilization Theory

Collective behaviour theory, both “interactionist” and “functionalist,” was critiqued

for seeing social movement actors as simply “irrational” and the sole product of

malfunctioning societies. Beginning in American sociological studies during the

1970s, research began to devalue theories of reactive irrationality and instead started

to focus analysis on the “processes by which the resources necessary for collective

action are mobilized”. Importantly, social movement action was seen as the result of

individual actors engaging in “a rational way” (Porta and Diani, 1999, p.7). As Carty

explains, resource mobilization sees

“[S]ocial movements develop when individuals with grievances are able to mobilize
sufficient resources… [Resource mobilization] focuses on organizational dynamics
and specifically on how individuals, groups, and organizations access and utilize
resources. These resources include knowledge, money, media attention, labor,
solidarity, organizational structure, legitimacy, and support from political elites.
Participants are characterized as purposeful and motivated on the basis of a
calculation of the costs and benefits regarding participation” (2011, p.10).

As stated, resource mobilization theory focuses on the availability of a groups

“material” or “non-material” resources, and, their capacity to organize and mobilize

them. Again, of key relevance, is the “existence of horizontal solidarity links” (Porta

and Diani, 1999, p.8).

Although this theoretical perspective made “important innovations” regarding the

rationality and “choice” of social movement actors, criticisms as to the “indifference

to the structural sources of conflict” arose (Porta and Diani, 1999, p.9). A central

drawback of resource mobilization theory, and a critique that has led to new forms of

social movement theory, is its lack of “attention to the cultural and symbolic

dimension of social life that often underpins such strategic action” (Carty, 2011,

p.10).

31 of 62
 Political Process Theory

Continuing to develop on the notion of social movement actors as rational, “political

process” theory gave “systematic attention to the political and institutional

environment in which social movements operate” (Porta and Diani, 1999, p.9).

Likewise, choice is still a central element of an actor‟s involvement; however, this

choice is in relation to evaluations of the “political environment” and subsequent

“calculations” regarding the “impact of their collective action”.

“The political context therefore affects mobilizing efforts and influences which
claims will be pursued, which alliances are likely to ferment, and which political
strategies and tactics will be chosen” (Carty, 2011, p.10).

McCarthy highlights an interesting aspect of political process theory, in that as

“authority” takes an increasingly “transnational form”, social movements themselves

will become “transnational in scope and target” (1997, p.255). This echoes the

sentiments of Feixa et al., who stated that „New, New‟ social movements had emerged

in response to the rise of global „informational capitalism‟ and indeed occupy the

same „globally networked space‟ (2009, p. 426).

While this theory can be seen to include the best aspects of its predecessors, yet also

invoking a “political dimension,” criticisms again arose, this time to a so-called

“political reductionism” (Porta and Diani, 1999, p.10). Carty notes that this

“drawback” was said to ignore “the “cognitive” processing of the social movement

actor, instead, presupposing “that all aspects of social movements – their emergence,

dynamics, cognition of participants and their susceptibility to join political protest,

and outcomes – are determined by macro structural relations” (Carty, 2011, p.11).

32 of 62
 Frame Analysis

Political environments and resource management alone do not adequately “explain the

emergence of social movements, reasons for participation, and the strategic choices

that social movement actors make.” Carty states that “other mitigating factors” help

explain how actors “perceive and define” situations, hence subsequently “decide what

action should be taken.” Theorists writing about “new” social movements began to

include elements of “social constructionism” to their work, thus marking a “cultural

turn” away from the „how‟ of collective action towards the „why‟ (Carty, 2011, p.12).

Research utilising this approach asserts that social movement participants are not

simply “utility-maximisers”, but instead, “often immersed in rich normative

commitments as a result of close ties to other individuals, groups, traditions, and

broader ethical or moral sentiments” (Carty, 2011, p.12). “Collective identity”

presents as an “immaterial quality”, “a perception of a shared status or relationship”

that acts to motivate individuals to act together. Importantly, these perceptions can be

“imagined rather than experienced directly”, but nethertheless perspectives that if

highlighted, illuminate “how individuals come to decide they share certain

orientations and grievances and decide to act collectively” (Carty, 2011, p.13).

In contrast to the fore mentioned structural and political determinism, framing

processes help to “compliment” theories of political process and resource

mobilization “by helping to bridge the gap between the structural foundations for

action and the collective action itself” (Carty, 2011, p.13). Frame analysis brings

together central features of the fore mentioned theories. The creation of new values

33 of 62
and beliefs, as denoted in collective behaviour theory as an automatic response to

change or conflict (Porta and Diani, 1999, p.6) can instead be seen as rational action,

whereby collective identity is seen as “an interactive, shared process that links

individuals or groups to a social movement through sustained interaction”. For

Melucci, collective identity “is constructed and continually negotiated, and provides a

shared cognitive world view” (in Carty, 2011, p.13).

At this point a brief aside is made to bring together some key points from the

preceding chapters and to make explicit, ties to the proposed methodology for this

research; frame analysis.

Considerable time has been taken to familiarise the reader with the notion of frame.

Defined here by Carty as an “interpretive schema that an individual or group uses to

interpret reality” (2011, p.13), the term originates, as discussed, from the work of

Erving Goffman (1974). As with Carty‟s introduction of framing, Goffman clearly

states its perception based notion of reality (1974, p.11), where, as discussed in earlier

chapters, a “framework of understanding” (Goffman, 1974, 10) or a “frame of

reference” is to form from “Beliefs… interests, preconceptions, stereotypes and

values” (A. Cohen, 2005, p51). It is used to make “sense of events” and to

subsequently determine “subjective involvement” in them (Goffman, 1974, p.10).

Additionally, Carty‟s notion of collective frame identity being real or perceived

(2011, p.13) links with Appadurai‟s “imagined worlds”, the largely perspective based

34 of 62
“constructs” that result from differing “angle[s] of vision” held by individuals or

collectives that navigate the world flows or scapes (Appadurai, 2008, p.98). As

outlined earlier also, contemporary “frameworks or schemata of interpretation”

(Goffman, 1974, p.21) are constructed through “disembedded” social systems, which

have been lifted out from their “local contexts of interaction” and restructured “across

indefinite spans of time-space” (Giddens, 1991, p.21). This was likened to a Network

Society (Castells, 2010).

Thus when the perspective of frame analysis is used for the study of contemporary

social movements, specifically “‟New, New‟ social movements” (Feixa et al., 2009,

p.426), then the framing of movement values and beliefs is done on a global scale,

essentially, the methodology for the framing of a global social movement or global

identity; the framing and exploration of a global consciousness.

Framing Global Action

“Framing” is defined as a “conscious strategic effort by groups of people” to facilitate

“shared understandings” of both the “world” and “themselves”. This in turn serves to

“legitimate and motivate collection action.” This perspective, and the analyses of it,

is grounded in the work of Benford and Snow (McCarthy, 1997, p.244); hence to

quote them at length

“Frames help to render events or occurrences meaningful and thereby function to

organise experience and guide action. Collective action frames also perform this
interpretive function by simplifying and condensing aspects of the „world out there,‟
but in ways that are „intended to mobilize potential adherents and constitutes, to
garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists.‟ Thus, collective action

35 of 62
 frames are action-orientated sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate
the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization” (Benford and Snow,
2000, p.614).

As Benford and Snow highlight, frames “simplify and condense aspects of the „world

out there‟” (2000, p.614), therefore, in the case of the global social movements, and

specifically ones that are orientated around the world being a “single place” (Lechner

and Boli, 2008, p.3), “great obstacles” present as to the amount of simplification and

condensing possible. As McCarthy states, if “strategic framing is difficult at the

national level, it is far more difficult at the transnational level”. He elaborates that

social movements seek to build frames that “resonate” in multiple and “diverse

cultural settings”. One obvious barrier also is the vast range of languages on the

planet; less obvious but of central importance, is that frames which “resonate with

diverse local personal experiences are not easily discovered” (1997, p.245). As was

seen as characteristic of global „New‟ New Social Movements, a “localized

internationalism” sought to link participants “locally routed troubles” to a

transnational idea or movement (Feixa et al., 2009, p. 427). Framing on a Global

scale then is probable to be a long, “extensive, and multifaceted process” (McCarthy,

1997, p.245).

The size and scope of the framing processes utilized by global social movements has

some clear impacts on the degree to which they can be identified and researched,

particularly in a work of this size and resource. Before proceeding to the next chapter

in which a specific case study will be identified and discussed, some parameters for

research will be set. Scope and direction for further research will be addressed in the

subsequent chapter and conclusion that follow, from this point though, so called “core

framing tasks” (Benford and Snow, 2000, p.615) will be performed in hope of

36 of 62
providing initial insight and outlines of the select global social movement. As

touched on in the previous chapter, the individual is seen as the “last locus” of these

perspective based constructs; for these worlds are “navigated by agents who both

experience and constitute larger formations” (Appadurai, 2008, p.98). It is therefore a

necessary parameter of this research that focus will be held towards the core framing

tasks as displayed by the macro level structure of the social movement; the individual

will remain aloof in this instance, a subject in waiting of subsequent research.

Identity, Adversary, Goal

Benford and Snow place “core framing tasks” as the negotiation of “a shared

understanding of some problematic condition or situation social movement actors

define as in need of change.” Furthermore, these core framing tasks outline who or

what is regarded as causing the “condition or situation,” and what in turn should be

done about it. These are given the descriptions diagnostic, prognostic, and

motivational frames (2000, p.615).

For the purposes of this research a slight change is made to the proposed

methodology. An adaptation of sorts is used by Castells (2010b) in his lengthy study

featuring social movements. It is of particular relevance to this study because the

movements he uses are contextualized within The Network Society (2010a).

Congruently, for Castells this model helps to “put some order into a mass of disparate

material” and derives from Touraine‟s defining of social movements in line with

“three principles”; Identity, Adversary, Goal (Castells, 2010, p.74). This will be the

methodology used for this research.

37 of 62
In a similar vein to the “core framing tasks” outlined by Benford and Snow (2000,

p.615), Castells model includes diagnostic features. Instead however these are

combined into “the movement‟s adversary” or “principle enemy” (p.74). Thus the

problem, and who or what is causing it is combined. This still follows a central

principle of frame analysis, “adversarial framing” seeks to “delineate the boundaries

between „good‟ and „evil‟ and construct movement protagonists and antagonists”

(Benford and Snow, 2000, p.616).

Castells model also clearly provides scope for prognostic and motivational framing

elements, specifically, his use of “societal goal refers to the movement‟s vision of the

kind of social order, or social organization, it would wish to attain in the historical

horizon of its collective action” (2010b, p.74). Motivational framing specifically

addresses the movements “call to arms” or “rationale for… collective action”

(Benford and Snow, 2000, p.615) and will be addressed under the “societal goal”

(Castells, 2010b, p.74) heading used in the case study.

Finally, the central reason for switching to Castells model is the inclusion of

“Identity” as a specific point of interest. On topic with this dissertation, Castells

search of the social movement‟s identity includes a vital element, that is, “the self-

definition of the movement of what it is” (2010b, p.74). As was stressed earlier in

this work, and is its central focus essentially, the emergent global “culture and

consciousness” sees identities being articulated around the notion of the world being a

“singular place” (Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.2). Inclusion of Identity will enable this

as a specific focus.

38 of 62
 6.

The Zeitgeist Movement

Case Study Introduction

“Zeitgeist began as a public performance, an attempt at a vaudevillian concept… a

creative work… film and live music… I did it mainly because I had been stuck in the
corporate reality and I wanted to do something for myself to make myself feel better
about a world that‟s going to shit essentially… it was just an expression, in fact a
very angry but solemn expression… I never expected it to turn out to be what it was
at all… so I tossed it up online, what happened completely blew my mind.”

(Peter Joseph, 2010a)

By way of brief introduction, Cohen‟s General Theory of Subcultures (2005) can shed

light on the emergence of The Zeitgeist Movement in early 2009. Referring again to

“the frame of reference,” Cohen highlights that actors who experience problems to

which there are no “ready-at-hand solutions,” will be left with feelings of “tension,

frustration, resentment, guilt, bitterness, anxiety or hopelessness.” Essentially, a

“change in that frame of reference” is sought (2005, p.51).

Intended to be an artistic expression, The Zeitgeist Movie (Joseph, 2007) can be seen

as an “exploratory gesture… a casual, semi-serious, non-committal or tangential

remark”. Such a gesture is seen by Cohen as a way to stick ones “neck out” and look

for like minded individuals to respond to a problem. The emergence of a new cultural

form is crucially dependant both on the “number of actors with similar problems” and

their ability to interact with “one another” (Cohen, 2005, p.54). As highlighted

previously, the development of horizontal communication in The Network Society has

facilitated new forms of social organization (Castells, 2010), and the Zeitgeist

Movement is one such example. As Cohen expresses, “the final product” or

39 of 62
“formation” to result from such a gesture, is “perhaps unanticipated by any of them…

it is a real „emergent‟ on a group level (2005, p.55).

Following its 2007 release, „Zeitgeist the Movie‟ was seen by an estimated “100

million people by 2009” (Joseph, 2011), its sequel Zeitgeist Addendum (Joseph,

2008) received over “50,000,000 views within its first year” of release (Press release,

Appendix 1) and what started as a movie soon became a social movement.

Confirmation of viewings was sought from Google over 12 months ago, and sadly no

response has been received. However, primary research collected in preparation for

this study, has shown that the movement has grown some 22% over the past 12

months, with a membership total, since 2009, now standing at close to 450,000 (see

figure 1.) and a further 520,000 subscribers to newsletters. These members are to be

found in close to 200 different countries (see appendix 2. for complete listings) and,

with dedicated translation teams, movement materials are found transcribed in up to

37 different languages.

The Zeitgeist Movement Global Membership 2010 - 2011

450,000

440,000

430,000

420,000

410,000

400,000

390,000

380,000

370,000

360,000

350,000
15/03/2010

29/03/2010

12/04/2010

26/04/2010

10/05/2010

24/05/2010

07/06/2010

21/06/2010

05/07/2010

19/07/2010

02/08/2010

16/08/2010

30/08/2010

13/09/2010

27/09/2010

11/10/2010

25/10/2010

08/11/2010

22/11/2010

06/12/2010

20/12/2010

03/01/2011

17/01/2011

31/01/2011

14/02/2011

28/02/2011

Fig. 1.

40 of 62
With a plethora of materials available, The Zeitgeist Movement presents as a truly

multimedia phenomenon, whilst simultaneously demonstrating physical embodiment

in a range of globally and locally coordinated events. On the 15th January, 2011, the

third film in the Zeitgeist series was released in over 300 venues worldwide in more

than 30 different languages (See Appendix 1). Currently, there are 49 international

chapters comprising of nationally organised groups, and a subsequent 813 sub-

national chapters and project teams. These are networked and all accessible via a

gateway page (The Zeitgeist Movement, 2011a). Data on the growth of these groups,

as well as individual membership has been collected for over 12 months, subsequent

studies supported by adequate data processing power would enable network

modelling and further growth exploration. A short compilation of core movement

materials has been listed in appendix 3, but stress is made that to identify all materials

related are beyond the scope of this study. At this point, research will continue within

the set parameters of framing the movement‟s identity, adversary, and goal.

Identity

“The term „zeitgeist‟ is defined as the intellectual moral cultural climate of an era.
The term „movement‟ simply implies motion or change. Therefore the Zeitgeist
Movement is thus an organisation that urges change in the dominant intellectual
moral and cultural climate of the time. Specifically, to values and practices which
would better serve the wellbeing of the whole of humanity, regardless of race
religion creed or any other form of contrived social status” (Joseph, 2009).

The identity of the Zeitgeist Movement, as defined by its founder, is that of an

organization that urges change. In line with the over riding theme of this work, and

the aforementioned global consciousness, the Zeitgeist Movement acknowledges that

“it‟s one world… a single round planet” and, furthermore, stresses “its time that we

recognise it as such… The world‟s going to have to learn to work together” (Joseph,

41 of 62
2011b). The zeitgeist movement has at the centre of its identity a belief in equality,

and that a move to a global social system that benefits all is required. Thus the

Zeitgeist Movement does not recognise itself as a “political movement… it does not

recognise divisionary notions such as nations, governments, races, religions, creeds or

class.” Rather, it recognises the world as “one organism with the human species as a

singular family.”

“Simultaneously, we acknowledge that we depend entirely on our environment, not

only in regard to the necessities of life, such as food air and water, but also for
influence and guidance in regards to life‟s processes. We recognise and understand
that aligning ourselves with natural processes is the most progressive and productive
disposition we can have” (Joseph, 2011c).

The Zeitgeist Movement advocates, in this direction, “the application of the scientific

method for social concern.” Thus another core element of its identity is its alignment

with science, which, it states, has been responsible for the biggest advances and

developments in history (Joseph, 2011c). Thus congruently, the Zeitgeist Movement

materials are found to be heavily cited and referenced with science from many

disciplines. The latest film release featured, including others; Dr Robert Sapolsky,

Professor of Neurobiology at Stamford University (1992); Dr Gabor Maté, Physician

author, Portland Society (2011); Professor of Social Epistemology Richard

Wilkinson, University of Nottingham (2010); Dr James Gilligan, former Director for

the Study of Violence, Harvard Medical school (2000); and Dr John McMurtry,

Professor Emeritus of Guelph University (2002; 1992). This is not to say that the fore

mentioned scholars are members of the movement, but simply that identity and claims

made, are based and justified on the scientific discourses of those mentioned. In all

cases, scholars were interviewed and provided consent for materials to be used by the

movement.

42 of 62
In summary, the Zeitgeist Movement‟s identity is that of a global species, deciding to

firmly ignore and challenge divisional concepts. Instead they bear a heavy

humanitarian stance, promoting science and technology as a means to achieve

sustainability and wellbeing for all.

Adversary

“So, when we recognise the fact that the human organism, which has a great deal of
adaptive flexibility allowing us to survive in many different conditions, is also
rigidly programmed for certain environmental requirements or, human needs; a
social imperative begins to emerge. Just as our bodies require physical nutrients, the
human brain demands positive forms of environmental stimulus at all stages of
development, whilst also being protected from negative sorts of stimulus. And if
things that should happen do not, or if things that shouldn‟t happen do, it is now
apparent that the door can be opened not only for a cascade of mental and physical
diseases, but many detrimental human behaviours as well” (Joseph, 2011d).

There are many of hours of dedicated materials directed towards the “bio-psycho-

social” nature of human beings. Again, with no divides being drawn between the

basic human needs of one group or another, heavy attention is paid, and scientific

evidence provided, for the fundamental notion that humans have behavioural ties to

the environment around them. Fundamental questions are addressed as to the

“condition we have created in the modern world,” specifically, to whether our “socio-

economic system” supports our “health” and can be seen as “a positive force for

human and social development;” or whether “the foundational gravitation of our

society is actually going against the core evolutionary requirements needed to create

and maintain our personal and social wellbeing” (Joseph, 2011d).

Vast arrays of articulations towards these questions are offered. A central tenant of

them is monetary economics. Attention is paid to specific liberal free market

capitalism, however, it is pushed that “regardless” of what “social system” states

43 of 62
claim to use, every economy in the world sees “money pursued for the sake of

money” and national wealth tied to “production.” It is proposed that the “money

sequence of value” has become completely decoupled from “the life sequence of

value,” furthermore, that in the “economic doctrine” deriving and qualified by Adam

Smith et al., complete confusion is made over the fact that money sequence values are

held to deliver life sequence values. Essentially this is referred to as a “system

disorder,” and a strong and empirically supportive argument is made that the GDP of

a country does not equate to its social wellbeing, in fact the effects of unequal and

competition based social systems on human behaviours and societal health is strongly

correlated (Joseph, 2011d: See also Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010).

Lengthy discussions are hence paid to the design of our “classic economic models”,

highlighting foundational principles, such as “cyclical consumption” and “patterns of

monetary exchange that simply cannot be allowed to stop or even substantially slow”.

The waste and social environmental consequences are also firmly addressed at length;

“But, hold on, I thought an economy was meant to, I don‟t know, economize?
Doesn‟t the very term have to do with preservation and efficiency, and a reduction of
waste? So how does our system which demands consumption, and the more the
better, efficiently preserve or economize at all? Well, it doesn‟t” (Joseph, 2011d).

“Absence of waste, that‟s what efficiency is; absence of waste. This system is more
wasteful than all the other existing systems in the history of the planet. Every level
of life organization and life system is in a state of crisis and challenge and decay or
collapse. No peer review journal in the last thirty years will tell you anything
different, that is that every life system is in decline. As well as social programs, our
water access, try to name any means of life that isn‟t threatened or endangered. You
can‟t, there isn‟t one, and that‟s very, very despairing. But we haven‟t even figured
out the causal mechanism yet, we don‟t want to face the causal mechanism, we just
want to go on, you know, that‟s what insanity is, where you keep doing the same
thing over again although it clearly doesn‟t work” (McMurtry, in Joseph, 2011d).

The Zeitgeist Movement lays out an argument against, or adversarial frame, in the

form of the “monetary-market system” itself, a “causal mechanism” which does,

according to Joseph and evidence used, do “the exact opposite of what a real economy

44 of 62
is supposed to do”. Before proceeding to the movements framed societal goal, an

important aspect to reiterate is that the movement‟s adversary is positioned as the

system itself. Attention is paid to those who benefit most and least from the system,

thus those more likely to defend it; but key to the movement is that those divisions, as

with the aforementioned behaviours, are “symptomatic of the system” itself (2011d).

“Make no mistake, the greatest destroyer of ecology, the greatest source of waste and
depletion and pollution, the greatest purveyor of violence, war, crime, poverty,
animal abuse and inhumanity, the greatest generator of personal and social neurosis,
mental disorders, depression, anxiety, not to mention the greatest source of social
paralysis stopping us from moving into new methodologies, for personal health,
global sustainability and progress on this planet; is not some corrupt government, or
legislation, not some rouge corporation or banking cartel, not some flaw of human
nature, and not some hidden secret cabal that controls the world. It is in fact, the
socio-economic system itself” (Joseph, 2011d).

Societal Goal

Fig. 2. (Buxton, 2011)

Forms of resistance to corporate globalization have often been criticized for lacking in

“alternatives” and hence “unworthy of serious attention” (Friedman, in International

Forum on Globalization, 2008). This is certainly not true of the Zeitgeist Movement.

Building on the work of Jacques Fresco (2002), a 95 year old “social engineer” from

Venus, Florida, a completely new societal design has been proposed. Computer aided

design models are available for numerous aspects of this concept, figure 2 shows

Fresco‟s circular city design, modelled by Buxton (2002; original concept, Fresco,

45 of 62
2006), appendix 4 displays additional designs, but as stated by Fresco, these are just

“visual aides” and included for the reader in such a context; the actual appearance

would vary dependant on the “current state of technology.” It is claimed that all

designs are based on currently available methods (Fresco, in Gazecki, 2006). The

wider specific “goal” behind such designs, as directly outlined by director Joseph, is

to build a society that is “sustainable and supportive of human life” (2011d).

As a movement with science as a central feature of its identity, it is logical that

science, or more specifically “the scientific method”, is placed at the centre of the

proposed societal goal. Fresco asserts that “science tells the truth,” that:

“Science is the closer approximations to the way the world really works… a scientist
doesn‟t try to get along with people, they tell them what their findings are… all
systems that can be put to test should be put to test, all decisions should be based
upon research” (Fresco, in Joseph, 2011d).

For the Zeitgeist Movement, the science points towards “systems theory,” a train of

logic that recognises the “fabric of the natural world, from human biology, to the

earthly biosphere, to the gravitational pull of the solar system itself, is one huge

synergistically connected system.” Sequential to its adversarial frame, The Zeitgeist

Movement hence outlines a new type of socio-economic model, better designed to

meet current challenges. This is referred to as a “Resource Based Economy” and its

core components consist of a global “resource management system”, “global

production systems management, and a “global demand and distribution tracking

system”. A central axiel principle is that of “dynamic equilibrium,” a recognition that

we live on a planet of finite resources and that no resource needed for life should be

used faster than is possible to grow or replace. As articulated in many movement

materials, this represents a “true economy” where resources are managed on a global

46 of 62
scale, by “a unified, dynamically updating, global economic management machine…

designed to take care of humanity as a whole” (Joseph, 2011d).

“A resource based economy is simply the scientific method applied for social
concern, an approach utterly absent in the world today. Society is a technical
invention, and the most efficient methods of optimized health, physical production,
distribution, city infrastructure and alike, reside in the field of science and
technology, not politics or monetary economics” (Joseph, 2011d).

In the societal goal articulated by the Zeitgeist Movement, the adversarial “money-

market paradigm” is simply removed, and replaced with an “intelligent global

management system”. Central to this idea, is the radical, yet logically presented

notion that “no money” or “market” is “needed” in a resource based economy.

Moving from a social system based on “ownership”, global resource management

would see production and distribution formed around a global “access” system.

Again, this “access” is to be based on universal human needs and necessities, not what

a market permits. The central point is that this resource access is made available to all

human beings and delivered in line with the “Earths natural referents” (Joseph,

2011d).

47 of 62
 7.

Conclusion

It is not the task of the dissertation to draw conclusions as to the viability of the

movement highlighted. Should further research be pursued in this direction, Benford

and Snow‟s concept of framing credibility may be of use, designed to address „frame

consistency, empirical credibility and articulator credibility‟ (2000, p.619).

Additionally, the discussed theorization of social movements could be applied more

widely, more specifically; applying political process and resource mobilization

perspectives, along side those of frame analysis, would enable a more complete

picture of any such social movement or collective action. As stressed by Carty, and

broached in this work; inclusion of “collective identity” links the „how‟ and „why‟ of

“collective behaviour”, exploring how social actors decide to share meanings and “act

collectively” (2011, p.13). Likewise, beyond further exploration of the macro

structures of collective action, research conducted on the “last locus of these

perspective based constructs”; the individual actor, would prove fruitful (Appadurai,

2008, p.98). Intriguing research would surely be the relationship between the two;

exactly how the macro level framework imparts and emerges with the individual, or

how „glocalization‟ occurs (Feixa et al., 2009, p.427).

The focus of this dissertation however, is not the specific movement or case study

discussed, but rather on the wider placement and exploration of a global

consciousness. As proposed, the modern world is adrift with dissembedded forms of

identity, where beliefs, values, and consciousnesses‟ are no longer restricted to

localized means of construction. The case study, provided only to compliment the

48 of 62
wider literature review and contextualization of such global narratives, served to

illuminate articulations as to the world being seen as a “single place” (Joseph, 2011b;

Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.2). The Zeitgeist Movement displays such values and

beliefs, and even though it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to fully detail all of

its facets, clear evidence is provided for a discourse based on global perspectives and

human regard in the whole. Transcending or emerging from existing forms of

sociability and cultural values and beliefs, this “realignment of groups”, as Cohen

states, is “emergent on a group level” (2005, p.55). The world can be said to be

pregnant with such realignments, and, in a world of increasingly networked

connectivity, multiple global consciousnesses‟ will likely continue to emerge. Unseen

however, is the forming of a “global consensus” (Lechner and Boli, 2008, p.10).

Emergent processes, such as the “findings” and “discourse of sociology”, demonstrate

circulatory patterns and continual reflexive restructuring (Giddens, 1991, p.45). This

leads not to certainty, but to the “puzzling” presence of more “questions.” This

“phenomenon” does not pertain solely to the lengthy works of scholars and eager

undergraduate students, but “filters” down, “into anxieties that press on everyone”

(p.49). This “new historical landscape” (Castells, 2010b, p.74) presents and

articulates new questions for the sociologist and global citizen, and, it is vital that

these new questions are pursued. Furthermore, emergent articulations and ideas

found in the global community, such as the removal of money for a global resource

based economy, can all too easily be dismissed and be seen to violate commonsense.

But sociology, if it is to be true to itself, must be prepared to address these kinds of

questions from a “value free” standpoint (Weber, in Berger, p.15, 1966), and to

exercise a key function, to “defamiliarize the familiar” (Bauman and May, 2001,

49 of 62
p.10). Research in to concepts outside of the current frame of reference, if nothing

else, broadens the scope of directions available.

“I fear that by looking for solutions in the formulas of Economics 101, we will be at
a loss in the dark world resulting from the failure to regulate a new kind of economy
under new technological conditions. This is why investigating the networked
structure of our global, networked economy may help to design strategies and
policies adapted to the realities of our time” (Castells, 2010a, p. xxii).

“[O]nly by scanning with an open mind the new historical landscape will we be able
to find shining paths, dark abysses, and muddled breakthroughs into the new society
emerging from current crises” (Castells, 2010b, p.74.).

United Nations global population projections peak in 2075, where an estimated 9.22

billion people (2004, p.1) will likely inhabit one “singular place” (Lechner and Boli,

2008, p.2), existing socio-economic and environmental tensions will likely continue.

The adjoining challenges posed by the “new technological conditions” and “kind of

economy” (Castells, 2010, p. xxii) required to meet both human and social

environmental needs demands attention as there is much at stake. Sociologically, this

dissertation makes a modest play at such a „scan‟, an attempt to pin down and take a

snapshot of this “new historical landscape” (Castells, 2010b, p.74). It aims not to

draw any grand conclusions, but to be used in conjunction with similar efforts, to

contribute overall to the understanding and questioning of the world in which we live

and the world which we move toward.

50 of 62
Appendix 1 – Zeitgeist Moving Forward Press Release

51 of 62
52 of 62
53 of 62
Appendix 2. Countries with Members.

Afghanistan Cuba Ivory Coast (Cote D'Ivoire)

Albania Cyprus Jamaica
Algeria Czech Republic Japan
American Samoa Denmark Jordan
Andorra Djibouti Kazakhstan
Angola Dominica Kenya
Anguilla Dominican Republic Kiribati
Antarctica East Timor Kuwait
Antigua and Barbuda Ecuador Kyrgyzstan
Argentina Egypt Laos
Armenia El Salvador Latvia
Aruba Equatorial Guinea Lebanon
Australia Estonia Lesotho
Austria Ethiopia Liberia
Azerbaidjan Falkland Islands Libya
Bahamas Faroe Islands Liechtenstein
Bahrain Fiji Lithuania
Bangladesh Finland Luxembourg
Barbados Former Czechoslovakia Macau
Belarus Former USSR Macedonia
Belgium France Madagascar
Belize France (European Territory) Malawi
Benin French Guyana Malaysia
Bermuda French Southern Territories Maldives
Bhutan Gabon Mali
Bolivia Gambia Malta
Bosnia-Herzegovina Georgia Martinique (French)
Botswana Germany Mauritania
Bouvet Island Ghana Mauritius
Brazil Gibraltar Mayotte
British Indian Ocean Territory Great Britain Mexico
Brunei Darussalam Greece Micronesia
Bulgaria Greenland Moldavia
Burkina Faso Grenada Monaco
Burundi Guadeloupe (French) Mongolia
Cambodia Guam (USA) Montserrat
Cameroon Guatemala Morocco
Canada Guinea Mozambique
Cape Verde Guinea Bissau Myanmar
Cayman Islands Guyana Namibia
Central African Republic Haiti Nauru
Chad Honduras Nepal
Chile Hong Kong Netherlands
China Hungary Netherlands Antilles
Christmas Island Iceland Neutral Zone
Cocos (Keeling) Islands India New Caledonia (French)
Colombia Indonesia New Zealand
Comoros Iran Nicaragua
Congo Iraq Niger
Cook Islands Ireland Nigeria
Costa Rica Israel Niue
Croatia Italy Norfolk Island

54 of 62
 North Korea Tanzania
Northern Mariana Islands Thailand
Norway Togo
Oman Tokelau
Pakistan Tonga
Palau Trinidad and Tobago
Panama Tunisia
Papua New Guinea Turkey
Paraguay Turkmenistan
Peru Turks and Caicos Islands
Philippines Tuvalu
Pitcairn Island Uganda
Poland Ukraine
Polynesia (French) United Arab Emirates
Portugal United Kingdom
Puerto Rico United States
Qatar Uruguay
Reunion (French) Uzbekistan
Romania Vanuatu
Russian Federation Vatican City State
Rwanda Venezuela
S. Georgia & S. Sandwich
Vietnam
Isls.
Saint Helena Virgin Islands (British)
Saint Kitts & Nevis Anguilla Virgin Islands (USA)
Saint Lucia Wallis and Futuna Islands
Saint Tome and Principe Western Sahara
Saint Vincent & Grenadines Yemen
Samoa Yugoslavia
San Marino Zambia
Saudi Arabia Zimbabwe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Islands
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tadjikistan
Taiwan

55 of 62
Appendix 3 - The Zeitgeist Movement Resources

Films

Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007)

Zeitgeist Addendum (2008)
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011)

All available at: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Lectures/Presentations

Activist Orientation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261#

Where are we now? (2009)

http://vimeo.com/6346955

Where are we going? (2009)

http://vimeo.com/7857584

Social Pathology (2010)

http://vimeo.com/10707453

Audio

Bi-Monthly radio broadcasts from March, 2009.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph

Literature

Activist Orientation Guide

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%20Zeitgeist%20Movement.pdf

Designing the Future by Jacques Fresco

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/A-DesigningtheFutureE-BOOK-small.pdf

Recent Global Events

Zeitgeist Day (2011)

http://www.zdayglobal.org/

56 of 62
Appendix 4 – Venus Project Design

Solar Power. (Fresco, 2006).

Inside city. (Buxton, 2011)

Geothermal. Fresco, 2006)

57 of 62
 Dissertation Bibliography

Appadurai, A. (2008). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,

In F. J. Lechner, J. Boli (Eds.), The Globalization Reader (3rd ed., pp.95-104).
Oxford: Blackwell.

Bauman, Z. (1995). Life in fragments: Essays in postmodern morality. Oxford:

Blackwell.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid Life. Cambridge: Polity.
Bauman, Z. May, T. (2001). Thinking Sociologically. 2nd Edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. Suffolk: The Chaucer
Press.
Benford, R. & Snow, D. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements:
An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(2000),
611-639.
Berger, P. (1966). Invitation to Sociology. Maryland: Pelican.
Buxton, A. (2011). The Venus Project. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Carty, V. (2011). Wired and Mobilizing; Social Movements, New Technology, and
Electoral Politics. Oxon: Routledge.
Castells, M. (2010a). The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture volume
1; The Rise of the Network Society (2nd Ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2010b). The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture volume
2; The Power of Identity (2nd Ed.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cohen, A. K. (2005). A General Theory of Subcultures [1955]. In K. Gelder (Ed.),
The Subcultures Reader (2nd ed., pp.50-59). London: Routledge.
Cohen, R. & Kennedy, P. (2007). Global Sociology (2nd ed.). Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Dicken, P. (2007). Global Shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world
economy. London: Sage.

58 of 62
Durkheim, E. (1858-1917, 1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. In S.Lukes
(Eds), Translated by W.D. Halls, The Rules of Sociological Method and
Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method (pp.31-163). New York: The Free
Press.
Engels, F. (1975). Anti-duhring. In K. Marx and F. Engels, On Religion (pp.126-
131). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Feixa, C., Pereira, I. and Juris, J. S. (2009). Global Citizenship and the „New, New‟
social movements: Iberian connections, Young, 17(4), 421-442.
Franklin, A. (2003). The Tourist Syndrone: An Interview with Zygmunt Bauman.
Tourist Studies, 3(2), 205-217.
Fresco, J. (2002). The Best That Money Can‟t Buy; Beyond politics, poverty, and
war (3rd ed.). Venus, Fl: Global Cyber-visions.
Gezecki, W. (Director). (2006). Future by Design [Motion Picture]. United States:
Docflix Corporation.
Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A. (1991b). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late
Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A. (2002). Runaway World: How globalization is reshaping our lives.
London: Profile books.
Gilbert, N. (2001). Researching Social Life (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Gilligan, J. (2000). Violence: reflections on our deadliest epidemic. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis; An Essay on the Organisation of Experience.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Henderson, J., Castells, M. (1987). Global Restructuring and Territorial
Development. London: Sage.

Hinkle, G. (1936). Early Western Civilization, BIOS, 7(2), 136-138.

Holton, R.J. (2000). Globalization‟s Cultural Consequences, The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570, 140-152.

International Forum on Globalization. (2008). A Better World Is Possible, In F. J.

Lechner, J. Boli (Eds.), The Globalization Reader (3rd ed., pp.482-493).
Oxford: Blackwell.

59 of 62
Joseph, P. (2009). Where are we going? [Lecture presentation]. Retrieved March
27, 2011, from http://vimeo.com/6346955
Joseph, P. (2010a). Who is Peter Joseph? Retrieved March 28, 2011, from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9IHJNB75E
Joseph, P. (2011b). Russia Today Interview with Peter Joseph. Retrieved March 25,
2011, from www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/home
Joseph, P. (2011c). Activist Orientation Guide. ? [Lecture presentation]. Retrieved
March 27, 2011, from
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261
Joseph, P. (Director). (2007). Zeitgeist: The Movie [Motion Picture]. Retrieved
October 13, 2008, from www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Joseph, P. (Director). (2008). Zeitgeist Addendum [Motion Picture]. Retrieved
October 13, 2008, from www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Joseph, P. (Director). (2011d). Zeitgeist: Moving Forward [Motion Picture].
Retrieved October 13, 2008, from www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Joseph, P. (2011a). How did „Zeitgeist: The Movie‟ come to be? Retrieved March 28,
2011, from http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997
Lechner, F. J. and Boli, J. (2008). A General Introduction, In F. J. Lechner, J. Boli
(Eds.), The Globalization Reader (3rd ed., pp.1-5). Oxford: Blackwell.

Martell, L. (2010). The Sociology of Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975). The German Ideology. In K. Marx and F. Engels,
On Religion (pp.65-72). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Maté, G. (2011). When the Body Says No: Exploring the Stress-Disease
Connection. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
McCarthy, J. D. (1997). Social Movement Theory. In J. Smith, C Chatfield
& R. Pagnucco (Eds.), Transnational Social Movements and Global
Politics (pp.243-259). New York: Syracuse University Press.
McMurtry, J. (1992). The Cancer Stage of Capitalism. London: Pluto Press.
McMurtry, J. (2002). Value Wars: the global market versus the life economy.
London: Pluto Press.
Sapolsky, R. (1992). Stress, the Aging Brain, and the Mechanisms of Neuron Death.
Cambridge: The MIT Press.

60 of 62
Sennett, R. (1999). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work
in the new capitalism. London: Norton.

Smart, B. (2005). Empowering the powerful, enriching the rich: on neo-liberalism,

economic globalization and social criticism‟, in P. Hayden and C. el-Ojeili
(eds.), Confronting Globalization: Humanity, Justice and the Renewal of
Politics, pp 68-83, Palgrave: London.

The Zeitgeist Movement. (2011a). Gateway Page. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
United Nations. (2004). World Population to 2300. Retrieved from the United
Nations publications website: http://www.un.org/esa/population/
publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Weber, M. (1967). The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism (8th ed.).
Translated by T. Parsons. London: Unwin University Books.
Weber, M. (1993). Science as a vocation (3rd ed.). In H. H. Gerth, C. Wright Mills
& S.
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for
Everyone. London: Penguin.
Wills, C. (1995). When Did Eve Live? An Evolutionary Detective Story, Evolution,
49(4), 593-607.
Wright Mills, C. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford
University Press.

61 of 62
 STATEMENT OF ORGINALITY

I confirm that to the best of my understanding this work has been prepared in

accordance with the university‟s regulations and guidelines on referencing and is

substantially my own work.

Signed..................................................................

62 of 62