Showing papers on "Social movement published in 1971"

Everyday life in the modern world

Abstract: When Lefebvre's book first appeared in the 1960s it was considered a manifesto for a social movement that focused on the quality of life experi-enced by the individual--by the com-mon man and woman. His emphasis on the quality of life will have even more appeal to those currently living with the problems of inflation, unem-ployment, and dwindling natural re-sources. Basing his discussions on everyday life in France, Lefebvre shows the de-gree to which our lived-in world and our sense of it are shaped by decisions about which we know little and in which we do not participate. He evaluates the achievements and shortcomings of applying variousphilosophical perspectives such as Marxism and Structuralism to daily life, studies the impact of con-sumerism on society, and looks at ef-fects on society of linguistic phenom-ena and various kinds of terrorism communicated through mass media. In his new introduction to this edi-tion, Philip Wander evaluates Lefebvre's ideas by relating many of them to current contexts. He discusses the political and economic aspects of daily life in the 1980s, the work envi-ronment, communications, and the world of science and technology.

Segmented Pluralism: Ideological Cleavages and Political Cohesion in the Smaller European Democracies

Abstract: In an era of political and scholarly concern with national integration, segmented pluralism serves as one historic model of the attempt to reconcile religious and ideological diversity with civic cohesion. Segmented pluralism is the organization of social movements, educational and communications systems, voluntary associations, and political parties along the lines of religious and ideological cleavages. It is pluralist in its recognition of diversity of religious, socioeconomic, and political affiliations; it is "segmented" in its institutionalization of most other forms of association along the lines of politico-religious cleavages. A social or cultural organization is "segmented" if it is composed chiefly of, and directed by, members of one of several churches or Weltanschauungsgruppen (or families spirituelles). I distinguish segmented organization from what I shall call functional organization. In functional organizations people associate only in terms of a specific economic or social purpose. Thus, a trade union organized solely on lines of skill or industry or employer unit is a functional organization, while a Catholic or Protestant or Socialist trade union is a segmented organization. A Boy Scout or Girl Scout troop organized only by age or locality is functional; but a Catholic or Protestant or Socialist Scout troop is segmented.

Some Notes Toward Theorg on Relative Deprivation, Social Movements, and Social Change:

Abstract: Author’s Note: This paper is Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article 5317. It is now commonplace to use relative deprivation explicitly or implicitly as a central variable in the explanation of social movements, and thus also to explain the processes of social change that are engendered by social movements.’ The basic notion is that feelings of deprivation, of discontent over one’s

Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change

Abstract: In The Civic Culture, perhaps the best known study of political culture, Almond and Verba say that ‘the relationship between political culture and political structure [is] one of the most significant researchable aspects of the problem of political stability and change’. I want to look at the way this relationship has been treated in one particular area, an area very relevant to questions of political stability and change in our own society; that is, in studies of political participation and apathy, especially research into the sense of political efficacy or competence. This is the area with which The Civic Culture itself is largely concerned, and it is now well established that individuals low in a sense of political efficacy tend to be apathetic about politics; indeed, Almond and Verba consider the sense of efficacy or competence to be a ‘key political attitude’.

Majority Involvement in Minority Movements: Civil Rights, Abolition, Untouchability1

Abstract: Social movements seeking to change the subordinate status of ethnic minorities have drawn activists from both the minority and dominant groups. Conflict has at times developed between movement members of these two groups. In a comparative analysis of three movements—the civil rights movement, the anti-slavery cause in the U.S., and the movement to abolish Untouchability in India—the sources of tension appear quite similar. Ideologically, minority group activists viewed themselves as more radical and committed to that particular cause than did their dominant group co-workers and were more for a strategy of minority group self-help. Organizational conflict arose as majority members disproportionately assumed decision-making positions in the movement. A third source of tension developed because some movement members were carriers of prejudices and hostilities of the larger social milieu. Outsiders frequently played essential roles in the early phases of these movements, but pressures developed on majority members to reduce involvement or withdraw altogether.

Social Positions and Political Cross-Pressures: A Re-Examination

Abstract: A distinction is made between two different theories of political behavior which have been grouped together under the term "cross-pressures." Attention is focused on one of these two theories which holds that the existence of socially based partisan differences will have a direct effect on nonvoting and other forms of political escape. It is shown that earlier empirical support for this theory is generated by analyses which are subject to much the same methodological difficulties as in the case of status inconsistency and mobility effects. The theory is tested using a properly specified model for the 1956 national voting data and then for the 1948 Elmira data. In both cases no evidence of the existence of cross-pressure effects is found.

On Political Theory and Political Action

Abstract: This paper is a revision of the Presidential Address delivered to the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, California, September 10, 1970. It identifies nine aspects of political theories: storage and retrieval of memories; assistance to insight; simplification of knowledge; heuristic effectiveness; self-critical cognition; normative awareness of values; scientifically testable knowledge; pragmatic skills; and wisdom, or second-order knowledge of what contexts are worth choosing—a wisdom subject to the possibility of radical restructuring. These nine aspects of theory form an integrated production cycle of knowledge. “Scientific” and “humanistic” political theorists need each other to understand the central task of politics: the collective self-determination of societies. To appraise this steering performance of political systems, large amounts of empirical data as indicators of social performance are indispensable. Political science has grown in knowledge of cases, data, research methods, and sensitivity to problems of disadvantaged groups and of the individual. It is learning to recognize qualities and patterns, verify the limited truth content of theories, and be more critical of its societies and of itself. It needs to increase research on implementation of insights, on positive proposals for reform, changes in political wisdom, and on the abolition of poverty and large-scale war. For these tasks, cognitive contributions from political theory are indispensable; working to make them remains a moral commitment.

The Contexts of Social Mobility: Ideology and Theory

Abstract: This book contains a major statement by one of America's most preeminent sociologists on what remains an important problem in American history and social analysis: the nature and extent of movement within American society from one status to another. The most important images of mobility involve self-improvement by changing location (going to the frontier, coming to the big city), and by changing social class (second-generation immigrants). Almost all sociological and historical analysis has been limited to these themes.Strauss extends the concept to a wide range of ideologies, institutional contexts, and social movements; his analysis is based on a formal theory of status passage and develops a partial theory of mobility. Strauss addresses a theme that underscores much of one strand of his work: the changing articulation of individuals with their social structure and institutions.The book follows on from the theoretical presuppositions of Discovery of Grounded Theory and the formal theory presented in Status Passage. Strauss was continually concerned with American social and intellectual life in its historical and contemporary manifestations. No one else has looked at the important phenomenon of mobility in this broad a context and from this point of view. The book remains important to those concerned with the social history of America and with problems of social change.

The Concept of the Political Criminal

Abstract: The political crime is perhaps the oldest of all crime-types. It is virtually impossible to find a history of any society which does not record political criminals. They have always existed, they exist now, and they will exist in the future, in spite of the historical experience that the ideal behind the political crime is often destroyed the moment it becomes reality. Although political crime is the oldest and most recurring criminal phenomenon of history, it has been largely ignored by criminologists. It has been considered merely a criminological satellite, a strange body of law violations revolving around the concept of ordinary crimes. This neglect of political crimes by criminologists and other social scientists is all the more surprising because the available data are quite extensive and there are no peculiar difficulties in attempting to analyze them. If we view only contemporary twentieth-century history, the most profound changes we find are political. The rise and fall of empires, charismatic leaders, races, classes and social systems have been the dominant features of these changes, and almost without exception these changes involved political crimes. It may be that the overly behavioral approach of contemporary criminology has been more interested in the expressions and results of conduct than in the conduct itself. Furthermore, any analysis of political criminals might be facilitated by a finding that most of them seem to exhibit common elements. Political criminals may generally be termed methodological kleptomaniacs who steal style from one another. Acknowledged by writers in the past as the passionate offenders, the political criminals of our time are simply technologically modern criminals wearing the cloak of old age. As the problem of political crime becomes more topical, it is difficult to feel anything except disquietude at experiencing so many revolutions, upheavals, and violet social movements. Yet this dis-

A Counter-Culture Explanation of Student Activism

Abstract: This paper develops the concept of a counter-culture—a semi-organized culture which examines and challenges many political and non-political features of the dominant culture. According to survey data gathered by both UCLA and Berkeley, “membership” in the counter-culture may partly explain student activism; and the differential growth of the counter-cultures at UCLA and Berkeley may partly explain the differential growth of activism at the two campuses. This paper briefly discusses the limitations of a counter-culture explanation of activism and the implications of such an explanation for methodology. It is suggested that interaction patterns of activists and non-activists should be examined and that other methodological techniques of social movement theory should be applied.

The Organization as a Political System

Abstract: ed as political. For this reason, we would expect that such political actions would be clearly related to the normative and behavioral character of bureaucracy. For example, it might be noted that exercises of personal political power are highly differentiated in interpersonal exchanges taking place in the organizational setting. Or one might ask whether the values of creative citizenship are fostered or hindered by man's involvement in rigorous and impersonalized institutional forms such as that typically presented by bureaucracy? In any case, to determine in which ways the organizational influences tend to mold the political processes in bureaucratic settings should prove a revealing enterprise. Such an inquiry might, of course, be broadened to comment on the broad interaction of organizational and political values, especially with respect to the learning process. For example, socialization research relating to such matters as political authority might well be extended to include some consideration of the learning of organizational authority as well. A significant question might be the extent to which somewhat parallel socialization experiences tend to reinforce or contradict one another. That is, we might ask whether a strengthened orientation toward bureaucratic authority might carry over into a deepened respect for regime authority.41 In a similar vein, one might well ask whether the inculcation of bureaucratic norms, especially those associated with elitism and hierarchy, acts to subvert the learning of more democratic political forms. There is every indication that organizational involvement and political participation are closely related, yet there has been little study of the personal factors capable of explaining this relationship. Finally, assuming the relevance of organizational norms to those of politics, the political theorist must ask how notions such as pluralism or even democracy itself are affected by various types of nongovernmental institutional structures. So far this question has been approached by political scientists largely from the standpoint of specifying environmental influences on the governmental process. That is, this field has been dominated by such concerns as the impact of the group on the political structure or the role of the large organization in shaping public policy.42 What has been neglected has been the political status of the active individual in relation to others, to relevant organizations, and eventually to the state. To explore such topics, it may be necessary to expand notions of political order and especially democratic citizenship to nontraditional areas. That is, theories of democracy may have to be broadened in such a way as to include aspects of power and decisionmaking in organizations as well as in the state. In relation to their members, corporations and other large organizations might then be considered direct contributors to the political process and therefore subject to critique on the grounds of democratic theory as well as organizational efficiency.43 Only under these circum" For an intriguing commentary on this problem, see Robert A. LeVine, "The Internatization of Political Values in Stateless Societies," Human Organization, 19 (Summer 1960), 51-58. See also Denhardt, "Bureaucratic Socialization," loc. cit. 42 For example, see David A. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951). ' Peter Bachrach has written, "It would be ludicrous to argue that the highly complex, mammoth, industrial corporate structure should or could be organized with the sole objective of conforming to democratic norms. It would be equally ludicrous to contend that economic efficiency should be the sole criterion by which to judge the performance This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:02:53 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 686 THE WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLY stances would we be led to such evaluative questions as whether a system containing a predominance of elitist institutions in capable of complete democracy or how the citizenship role may be expanded in light of changing institutional restrictions. Through all of this, however, we must realize that there are inherent differences in the perspectives provided by the organizational and the political, that each works from the basis of its own special interest and is directed and limited by it adherence to this pattern. of a politico-economic institution." Peter Bachrach, "Corporate Authority and Democratic Theory," in David Spitz, ed., Political Theory and Social Change (New York: Atherton Press, 1967), p. 269. See also Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic Elitism (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), esp. pp. 101-6. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.177 on Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:02:53 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

People, Nation, Race and Empire

Abstract: ‘Popular movement’ is too broad a term to constitute a type of social movement in any meaningful sense. ‘The people’, surely, are the vital materiel of all social movements. Should we not therefore concentrate on discovering which categories of people have supported which movements and under what conditions? These are indeed important questions to ask about every kind of social movement, and to a large extent the quality of movement analysis depends upon the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the historical and sociological evidence marshalled in the attempt to answer them. There is, however, a need for a separate residual category of social movement to accommodate the often ephemeral and frequently turbulent movements of rural and urban popular discontent. Indeed when historians talk of ‘the people’ they generally mean the ‘common people’, the ‘masses’, the poor and the underprivileged. Such movements and risings of the poor, so often equated with ‘the mob’ or ‘the rabble’ have a history which is probably as old as permanent human settlement. The slave riots and city risings of antiquity and the peasant revolts of the Middle Ages, such as the violently destructive jacquerie in France between 1357 and 1358, are all part of this ancient tradition.

Typology and Politicization

Abstract: In the first chapter an attempt was made to formulate a working concept of social movement distinguished in terms of: 1. conscious commitment to change, 2. minimal organization, and 3. normative commitment and participation. This working concept is closely linked with the concept of ‘culture’, defined as ‘a whole way of life, material, intellectual and spiritual’,1 and with ‘historical tendencies’, for social movements both initiate and reflect changes in the wider society. The major advantages claimed for this broad conceptualization are its flexibility and cultural interchangeability. However, the very generality of the concept raises real difficulties when one attempts to typologize social movements. On what basis can the daunting variety of phenomena embraced by the concept be differentiated and categorized?

On brigandage with special reference to peasant mobilization

Abstract: E. J. Hobsbawm (Primitive rebels. Studies in archaic forms of social movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, Manchester, England: 1959) introduced a universal of 'social banditry' as a primitive form of peasant organized protest against oppressors. His romanticized picture viewed social bandits as reformers not revolutionaries, without sufficiently noting the groups upon whom these social bandits actually prey. Hobsbawm's model fails by insistence that new data be interpreted only through his original theory. Through analysis of a Sicilian context, it is shown that: (1) bandits often terrorized those of their own sc, (2) they often helped suppress peasants through physical violence and intimidation, and (3) they have had key roles in effectively demobilizing peasant protest. Focus is on the relationships between lords, peasants, and bandits. T. Babitsky.

Impact and Prospects

Abstract: It is very difficult to measure with any precision the impact of a political party or social movement on a society. The best that can be hoped for, in most cases, is that indicators can be found that will provide some clues as to the extent of that impact.

Rousseau, Marx and Movement

Abstract: We shall make a convenient distinction throughout this study between ideologists, practitioners and scientists of social movement. Any individual whose major work and concern has been the formulation, elaboration and advocacy of normative or prescriptive theories or ideologies of society, may provide a source of ideological thinking and direction for a social movement, or for many social movements. In the case of a body of ideology that is particularly influential and widely disseminated, ideas derived from it will find their way into the general current of thought. Such major ideological sources will thus influence many participants unwittingly. Major ideologies may therefore be, to this extent, assimilated under historical movements, trends or tendencies. Nevertheless, in many cases, a minority social movement will consciously and consistently attempt to embody or realize the aims of an ideology quite unique to itself, and will expend much of its energies in ideological propaganda and public debate with its opponents.