Transition into modernity takes very different roads, depending on thesequencing of bureaucracy and democratic regime. This is demonstrated bycomparing Sweden and Greece. At an early stage of the long-term modernisationof Swedish society, due to early penetration of the internal territory andbefore the extension of suffrage and political modernisation, a number ofstate organisations were established at the interstices between state and society,creating direct relations between the state and society. The impressiveLantmäteriet, the organisation of tax authorities, the establishment ofauthorities for registering the population and the Tabellverket are typicalillustrations of such organisational structures. Such organisations functionedas social mechanisms that elucidated society making it legible and thusstrengthened the infrastructural capacity of the state. In Greece, where thestate was built after political modernisation, the establishment of similarorganisations proved to be more difficult. Although there is evidence thatsimilar Swedish practices were known in Greece to be possible paths, theywere not chosen. The establishment of a land registry system, for instance,was discussed in the decades prior to the 1871 land reform. On other issues,such choices could not be materialised given opposition or political countermobilisationto abolish the reforms after they were approved by parliament.These reform efforts were rather short-lived or countered by new reforms andexemptions, creating an ambiguous labyrinth of regulations of statesocietyrelations and a state without the capacity to intervene in society and implementlogistically political decisions throughout the realm. On the whole, thestate remained a distant entity, mostly a distrusted one, and relations between the state and society were mediated by parties and by social and kinshipbasednetworks.

Two ideas are almost universally accepted as reality in political sociology. One is that numbers are declining in nearly all membership associations. The usual interpretation of this phenomenon is that it occurs because of individualization. The other is that the character of collective action has changed. This idea, which stems from Touraine, Melucci and Castells, states that a new historical category of social action has emerged, one that resembles action in primary groups rather than in organizations and in some way is a victory over the iron law of oligarchy. This article questions both ideas. The author intends to show that another historical process is in play here, namely, a process of ‘inert rationalization’ in social movements, political parties and associations, which is taking place in Europe with different starting points and at different tempos. The result of this process can be summed up as ‘more organization with fewer people’. Domination, inherent in oligarchic organizations, is being transformed by the creation of a new organizational boundary between elite (or profession) and members. The point is that it is membership itself as a form for affiliation that is disappearing, not just members. The article argues that this is mainly because resource mobilization patterns have historically changed from the mobilization of resources drawn from members to the mobilization of resources drawn from other organizations. Finally, the article analyses the importance of the unstructured power fields (or open spaces) created by rationalization processes for social innovation and new social movements.