Introduction: this work, based on a literature review, will explore the analytical contributions of both the North American and European paradigms. The first section will present the debates and scope of theories situated around the notion of “frameworks of collective action.” The works of Gamson, Snow, and Benford will be considered. The second section will specify and discuss how this topic has been discussed and evaluated from the European paradigm. Including the contributions of Melucci and Touraine, the notions of identity and historicity will be addressed as conceptual frameworks for understanding the meaning of social change. Objectives: this work has two objectives. The first objective involves a literature review and analysis of conceptual contributions to theories on how social actors and movements imbue their struggles, the means, and the actors within the contentious dynamics with meaning. The second objective focuses on a literature review and discussion of the concepts of identity and historicity, as frameworks for understanding the production of the conditions and historical meaning of conflict and social change. Methodology: qualitative documentary and bibliographic review. Results: the study of how social movements construct a notion of themselves and the orientations of their actions has not only provided, within the field of social movement theory, an analytical tool for observing how movements, at a material level, produce a sense of conflict, adversaries, the means of action, and the ends of that action; but it has also brought to the forefront a crucial observation: political resources and opportunities for action will only become such to the extent that they are perceived as such. From the European paradigm of collective action, two substantial concepts emerge. The notion of identity, as developed by Melucci, is emphasized as a dynamic process that is produced and reproduced in the interaction of social actors. Touraine's concept of historicity, on the other hand, aims to evaluate and problematize the relations of power and domination that come into play in the contentious dynamic (the historical and emancipatory meaning of the struggle). Conclusions: at a theoretical level, the study of meaning production in social movements and in the dynamics of contentious action reveals two fundamental conclusions: social movements produce a sense of conflict, of adversaries, and of the means and ends for action. However, this heuristic dynamic is not inherent to the struggle process, but rather a result of it. Therefore, it is contradictory, dynamic, and poses an exercise in recognition for social actors. The identity of the movement thus arises from a relational logic. In the background, the meaning constructed in the process of contentious action is not always capable of defining and disrupting the historical process of domination and the power relations at play. General area of study: Social Sciences. Specific area of study: Sociology. Article type: Narrative literature review.
