What’s “new” about New Social Movements? How does/could this theoretical framing change our understanding of rhetorics of social change (both verbal and embodied)? To what extent are the movements themselves “new” in terms of aims, activity, collectivities, frames, available resources for disseminating ideology versus our theoretical framing of movements new, more expansive, in what ways and caused by what phenomenon?

Through what rationale can we claim activities like “pranking” and other forms of culture jamming as social movement activity? How does this rationale differ from or expand earlier versions of movement theory that might not position pranking within the boundaries of movement activity? For example, could and should we frame cuture jamming as a “confrontational form,” a “agonistic ritual” that is meant to displace and replace the “existing order?” In what ways does Harold’s study of praking problematize Cathcart’s understanding of social movement activity as “reject[ing] the system, its hierarchy, and its values?”

New Social Movement theorists’ claims that contemporary movements, those peopled primarily by the middle class, are defensive, rather than generative? How might we understand these—defensive/generative--in dialectical enjoinment with one another? One way might be to tease out the ways in which cultural jamming, Harold suggests (quoting Vale and Juno), “pose[s] a ‘direct challenge to all verbal and behavioral routines, and [undermind] the sovereign authority of words, language, visual images, and social conventions in general.”