In Manuel Castells’ second volume of his trilogy on globalization, identifies types of identities used in social movements. The first of these is the “resistance identity” as defined by Castells. Castells describes resistance identity as “the most important type of identity-building … against otherwise unbearable oppression, usually on the basis of identities that were, apparently, clearly defined by history, geography, or biology” (Castells 9). However, Castells makes a point to note that the resistance identity alone is not as useful to the social movement but rather the “project identity” is the superior identity for movement making.  Castells acknowledges that a project identity may be built “on the basis of an oppressed identity,” but expands that it must push for “the transformation of society” (Castells 10). This confluence of the resistance and project is incredibly salient when looking towards the leaders of social movements.

Furthermore, Castells classifies environmental movements into five types: Conservation of nature, Defense of own space, Counter-culture/deep ecology, Save the planet, and Green Politics (Castells 112). In this framework, Castells separates the types based on their overall goals of wilderness, quality of life/health, ecotopia, sustainability, and counterpower, respectively. Castells argues that environmental movements ought to change the notion of time from “clock time” to “glacial time” which he defines as: “the idea of limiting the use of resources to renewable resources… predicated precisely on the notion that alteration of basic balances in the planet and in the universe, may, over time, undo a delicate ecological equilibrium, with catastrophic consequences.” (Castells 125) This notion of time is used to “propose sustainable development as intergenerational solidarity brings together healthy selfishness and systemic thinking in an evolutionary perspective” in order to redefine the urgency of the environmental crises (Castells 126).

In contrast, Peter Evans puts livelihood and sustainability into conversation and takes a critical approach to Castells’ writings. Evans discusses the ways in which poorer cities must juggle the dichotomy of trying to keep up with technological advances and trying to keep their land clean. Evans characterizes this choice as “ecological degradation [buying] livelihood at the expense of quality of life, with citizens forced to trade green space and breathable air for wages.” (Evans 2) Evans critiques Castells’ work in The Informational City, in which Castells claims ordinary people are excluded from wielding power at most levels. Evans, however, finds this claim to be hasty and says “the possibility of ‘green growth machines’ or even ‘urban livability machines’ cannot be ruled out.” (Evans 13) Evans advocates for the use of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or political parties to act as “translocal intermediaries,” harnessing the ideas and advocating for the needs of the everyday person.

Similarly, Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink advocate for the creation of larger advocacy networks in order to broaden the political opportunity structure of a given movement. Keck and Sikkink discuss the possibilities of “network activists [seeking] international or foreign venues in which to present claims, effectively transforming the power relationships by shifting the political context.” (Keck and Sikkink 221) By drawing on this larger network of advocates, Keck and Sikkink illustrate the ways in which the power of the ordinary person can be amplified into a fully realized movement, able to put their issues onto the political agenda. Keck and Sikkink however, distinguish between transnational advocacy networks and transnational social movements. The difference they identified was that advocacy networks work is based on information and while it “may involve mobilization; more often it involves lobbying, targeting key elites and feeding useful material to well-placed insiders.” (Keck and Sikkink 236). They acknowledge the large overlap between the two groups, along with their differences, but ultimately they find both to be useful tools of change.

In “How styles of activism influence social participation and democratic deliberation,” Favareto and others, look into the trajectory of leaders of social movements and how these trajectories can predict the overall effectiveness of their movement and their willingness to engage participatory government. They hypothesize that the more “heterogeneous” the socialization of a movement’s leader, the more likely they will be to make more ties that are weaker and create a larger advocacy network, furthering their movement. This was supported by their research about Gabriel Oliveira “whose cultural capital – associated with his personal network of relations in the business and non-governmental organization (NGO) world – [had] been converted into political and economic capital.” (Favareto et al.  253) These findings correlate with Keck and Sikkink’s work regarding the importance of building large advocacy networks.