Lee Ann Banaszak's book identifies new links between feminist activists within the U.S. federal bureaucracy and the founding and evolution of the second wave of the women's movement. The author defines this movement–state intersection “as occurring when a network of movement actors or organizations is located within the state” (p. 8). Her account of the role that “insider feminists” played in helping to set in motion the creation of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the second wave of the women's movement supports the findings of others (Barakso Reference Barakso2004; Carden Reference Carden1974; Evans Reference Evans1980; Freeman Reference Freeman1975; and Ware Reference Ware1989, to name a few). Banaszak insightfully moves beyond these accounts, however, by demonstrating how our knowledge of the dynamics, development, successes, and failures of second-wave feminist initiatives is compromised because scholars have largely neglected to analyze the ongoing interactions between insider feminist activists and the movement and organizations they helped launch.

While Banaszak examines archival records of significant movement organizations, in addition to the papers of feminist activists who were employed in the federal bureaucracy, the centerpiece of her analysis rests on semistructured interviews with 40 feminist activists who held high-ranking positions within the state while also, for the most part, occupying positions in a diverse set of women's movement organizations. Interviewees were selected in part on the basis of their “clear and sustained activism within feminist organizations” broadly defined, and whose activism mostly “occurred prior to, or during, their employment in the federal government” (p. 207).

Banaszak's study centers on the second wave of the U.S. women's movement, but she makes a compelling case that analyses of movement–state intersections deserve attention in future studies of all social movements. Indeed, her findings and arguments resonate with important developments in the literature on the executive branch in the United States. They also align with striking changes in the nature of the relationship between the state and advocacy organizations of all kinds since 1960 that, in my view, have not been fully addressed by scholars analyzing American social movements of the past half century. In the past decade or so, for example, scholars have shed substantial light on the nature of bureaucratic autonomy, demonstrating how, and the conditions under which, state actors generate leverage to shape their agencies' missions and to undertake their own policy innovations under varied political contexts (Carpenter Reference Carpenter2001). Research on the interest group explosion of the 1960s and the decentralization of advocacy activities since then signaled the death knell of the “iron triangle” model of policymaking, which described a tight relationship between the legislature, interest groups, and the bureaucracy; state permeability to a wide variety of interests consequently increased (Bender and Moe Reference Bender and Moe1985; Heclo Reference Heclo, Theodoulou and Cahn1978; Sabatier Reference Sabatier1987). Finally, after World War II, and dramatically increasing in the 1960s–70s, the federal government either mandated or encouraged citizen participation in a wide array of government programs and initiatives within the bureaucracy (see summary in Roberts Reference Roberts2004). Surely these developments created even more fertile ground for movement–state intersections in the United States.

This study also complements recent scholarship concerning the persistent barriers women and other underrepresented groups continue to face in terms of achieving representation through interest groups, political parties, and electoral systems (Lawless and Fox Reference Lawless and Fox2010; Sanbonmatsu Reference Sanbonmatsu2006; Strolovitch Reference Strolovitch2007; Weldon Reference Weldon2011). Together, this scholarship and these developments in American politics only add more weight to Banaszak's argument about the necessity of considering movement–state interactions in our studies of social-movement dynamics and, more generally speaking, the avenues through which the representation of the marginalized may be achieved.

The Women's Movement Inside and Outside the State offers other notable correctives and insights. With a gimlet eye, Banaszak examines several concepts that are still too regularly taken for granted within the social-movement and interest-group literature. She seeks, in her words, to “blur” false distinctions that obscure rather than clarify phenomena. For example, she takes on one of the most familiar conceptual distinctions made by social-movement scholars: the difference between “insiders,” who may be movement sympathizers, and “outsiders,” referring to those who are movement activists. Banaszak's evidence shows that feminist insiders (both those in her interview sample and those whose personal papers she examined) did not conform to conventional tropes that presume bureaucrats cannot also be activists, let alone activists who hold radical views or who would support confrontational tactics. A priori assumptions, then, about the nature of the reform commitments of insider activists (in particular, that they are typically co-opted and tend to favor only limited reforms and conventional tactics) distort our capacity to recognize federal employees' agency (in particular, their incentives and opportunities to exert themselves on behalf of their personal policy aims). For example, the author's informants recount multiple instances in which insiders (like Sonia Pressman Fuentes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who transmitted key information about active cases to a network of feminist attorneys) would convey pivotal strategic information to movement activists (p. 126).

While Banaszak's skepticism about the insider/outsider divide is warranted, it would be interesting to hear more about the movement organizations with which the insiders engaged and their perspectives on a variety of issues discussed in the book. For example, a nontrivial number of cultures, principles, and policies of women's movement organizations reflected a preference for keeping the state at a distance. Although scholars of social movements should be mindful to avoid the careless dichotomization of the insider/outsider activist, the distinction remains relevant even today to a substantial number of social-movement organizations. How did movement organizations that championed their outsider status manage such intersections? To what extent were movement groups that were already relatively privileged the beneficiaries of the attention of insider feminist activists, assuming that such organizations might more likely be receptive to engaging with government officials?Footnote ¹

Similarly, Banaszak cautions against oversimplified and inflated notions of the origination and import of political opportunities—another concept frequently called upon to explain much of the variance in accounts of social-movement “success” and “failure.” Instead, she underscores the capacity of both movement activists and agents of the state to facilitate opportunities and to leverage vulnerabilities in the political system; her account of the establishment of the President's Commission on the Status of Women and the subsequent founding of NOW is a case in point (Chapter 4).

Banaszak also makes the excellent point that even the temporary or ad hoc bureaus, programs, commissions, and councils (such as the creation of the Office of Women in Development in 1974) created by presidential administrations of varying ideological predispositions to address feminist issues should not be overlooked. Once instituted, these bodies often influenced policy, found stable institutional positions within the bureaucracy, and fostered valuable linkages among networks of like-minded feminist insiders located throughout the state. Nevertheless, agencies' autonomy from presidential appointees and other political pressures does vary (Carpenter Reference Carpenter2001); as a result, we should expect that the penetration and influence of special commissions and the like will also vary according to their location in the state. Some evidence also suggests that both legislatures and presidents specifically establish these alternative organizational structures either to reduce bureaucratic discretion or to distance themselves from policy conflict (Lavertu Reference Lavertu2010; Miller and Moe Reference Miller and Moe1983; Wood and Bohte Reference Wood and Bohte2004). Studies evaluating the policy effects arising from these less institutionalized vehicles, often established as a means of contending with social movement claims, would undoubtedly constitute a valuable line of inquiry for future scholarship.

As Banaszak indicates, the salience of movement-state intersection has been noted by scholars of other movements, including the labor and environmental rights movement. The findings presented in The Women's Movement Inside and Outside the State suggest that these analyses might be worth reviewing with an eye to the relationship between insiders and outsiders. The author's approach may also inspire scholars to analyze other movements. Berry (Reference Berry1999) argues, for example, that although Christian conservatives appeared to dominate political agendas after the 1980s, in fact their policy successes (at least with respect to postmaterialist issues) did not match the victories of liberal activists. Berry contends that the fault lies with the relative weakness of conservative citizens' advocacy groups compared to those of liberals. Banaszak's research suggests another possible explanation for this incongruity: Could it be a result of the weakness of conservative insider networks, the location of federal bureaucrats with a particular interest in furthering policies favored by the Christian right, or weak connections between Christian-right movement activists and insider activists?

In sum, Banaszak has convincingly argued the merits of analyzing social movements with a view to understanding the ways in which they may intersect with the state—particularly along lines to which we have not given much attention in the past due to entrenched notions of the distinction between state and movement. The book will undoubtedly influence scholars of social movements, public administration, public policy, and interest groups both in the United States and beyond.