The argument above indicates that TSMO instrumental strategies are likely to contribute most effectively to such a shift when they remain connected via social movement networks to informal grassroots groups and their typically more expressive strategies.
They talk primarily of transnational social-movement organizations (hereinafter, TSMOs), transnational advocacy networks, and the involvement of both in processes of transnational contention that take advantage of the new political opportunities made available by international organizations and regimes and that involve the development of transnational frames and multilevel action repertoires.
Conditions of globalization are understood to be embedding states into networks of cooperation with each other and with INGOs or TSMOs. Perhaps two main versions of pragmatism can be discerned.
For example, political scientists and sociologists tend to use the labels "transnational social movements" or "global social movements," while IR theorists tend to invoke a variety of what could be called stand-in concepts, including "networks of global civil society," "the multitude," and "social forces." (18) Furthermore, whereas several political scientists and sociologists use the term TSMOs, theorists in international relations have talked rather of interest groups, pressure groups, and transnational activist groups.
(20) Both of these categories could be seen as substitute labels for TSMOs. However, Willetts does not investigate the relationship between these organizations and wider social movements.
Even in pragmatist work with a declared focus on movements, as in the volume edited by Jackie Smith et al., entitled Transnational Social Movements, we find an overwhelming focus on TSMOs and their relation to other formally structured organizations.
More specifically, it is the so-called new social movements that provide the template for understanding TSMOs and INGOs.
Now, while some TSMOs and INGOs may be structured according to the nonhierarchical network principles supposedly characteristic of new social movements (a point discussed at more length below), in our view some analytical distinction must be maintained between formal organizations and less formal moments of activism.
A preference for the use of the terminology of (I) NGOs, rather than TSMOs, enables institutionalized, technical associations to be taken as paradigmatic, and then all such groups to be criticized for reproducing extant relations and structures of power.
(27) Murphy offers an important reminder of the contribution of many NGOs to the diffusion of neoliberal norms and practices, but he does so by refusing to draw any distinction between NGOs and TSMOs or what he calls "social movement"--style organizations.