The Dynamics of Discontent: A Study on Relative Deprivation Theory and Social

Change

In unpacking the complexities of social change, the concept of Relative Deprivation Theory emerges as a pivotal analytical tool in the social sciences and political science spheres. This theory
delves into the understanding of disparities experienced by individuals or groups who lack the necessary means to sustain a lifestyle deemed standard within their socioeconomic settings [1]. It
brings to the fore critical discussions around income inequality, distributive justice, and the multifaceted layers of social exclusion, relative poverty, and, contrastingly, absolute poverty.

The implications of relative deprivation extend beyond theoretical bounds, influencing the emergence of social movements and prompting social action. As such, this article aims to thoroughly
explore how relative deprivation acts as a catalyst for collective discontent, leading to significant socio-political transformations. The ensuing discussion will navigate through the historical
evolution of the theory, its psychological ramifications, its presence in the workplace, and the critique surrounding its validation and applicability [1].

Defining Relative Deprivation

Relative deprivation is a pivotal concept in understanding social dynamics and movements. It describes the feelings or measures of economic, political, or social deprivation relative to others,
rather than in absolute terms [5]. This section explores the foundational aspects and types of relative deprivation, providing a clear framework for its role in societal changes.

Conceptual Framework

Relative deprivation refers to the lack of resources—such as money, rights, or social equality—necessary to maintain the quality of life considered typical within a given socioeconomic group [1].
Developed by American sociologist Robert K. Merton, this theory suggests that feelings of deprivation, when compared with others who have more, can lead to social movements aimed at
addressing disparities [1].

Types of Relative Deprivation

1. Egoistic Relative Deprivation:

This form is driven by an individual’s feelings of being treated unfairly compared to others within their own group [1].

2. Fraternalistic Relative Deprivation:

Often associated with larger group social movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, where a collective feels deprived compared to other more favorably situated groups [1].

Conditions for Feeling Relatively Deprived

British sociologist Walter Runciman identified four conditions necessary for the feeling of relative deprivation to arise [1]:

A person does not have something they desire.

They are aware of others who possess this desired item or status.
There is a strong desire to obtain this item or status.
The person believes there is a reasonable chance of acquiring the item or status.

Relative vs. Absolute Deprivation

Absolute Deprivation: Describes a condition where household income is below the level needed to maintain basic life necessities such as food and shelter [1].
Relative Deprivation: Involves a situation where household income is below a certain percentage of the country’s median income, leading to feelings of deprivation compared to the
societal standard [1].

Historical Usage and Social Implications

The term 'relative deprivation' was systematically used first during studies of morale in the U.S. Army during World War II by sociologist Samuel A. Stouffer and colleagues. They noted that it is
the perceived discrepancy between expectations and actual attainment that leads to feelings of deprivation [6]. Over time, social scientists have linked relative deprivation to the emergence of
social movements, political violence, and other forms of social deviance [5].

Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing the causes and consequences of social discontent and for designing policies aimed at mitigating these disparities.

Historical Context and Development

Origins and Evolution of Relative Deprivation Theory
Early Developments

Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT) was initially conceptualized in the mid-20th century, marking a significant shift in understanding social and psychological phenomena. Samuel Stouffer, in his
influential work "The American Soldier" published in 1949, laid the foundational elements of RDT by examining soldiers' satisfaction within the military. Stouffer's findings highlighted that
perceptions of fairness significantly influenced soldiers' contentment, regardless of their roles' desirability [3].

Expansion and Refinement

Building on Stouffer's groundwork, J.C. Davies introduced the 'frustration-aggression' hypothesis to RDT in 1961. This hypothesis suggested that improvements in living conditions, followed by
a period of stagnation, could lead to heightened frustration and potential social unrest [3]. Around the same time, British sociologist Walter Runciman made further distinctions within the
theory, identifying egoistic, fraternal, and sororal forms of relative deprivation in his 1966 publication "Relative Deprivation and Social Justice" [3].

Integration into Broader Disciplines

Since these foundational years, RDT has been increasingly applied across various fields such as sociology, political science, and economics. The theory has been instrumental in explaining
diverse phenomena including social inequality, political unrest, and economic disparities [3].

Key Figures and Contributions

American sociologist Robert K. Merton also significantly contributed to the development of RDT through his studies on American soldiers during World War II. He identified specific conditions
required for feelings of relative deprivation to emerge, such as the awareness of others possessing desired items or statuses, coupled with the belief in the possibility of acquiring these items [1].

British political scientist Ted Robert Gurr further explored the connections between relative deprivation and political violence. He posited that the frustration-aggression mechanism, triggered
by perceptions of relative deprivation, could be a primary source of human capacity for violence [1].

Distinguishing Relative from Absolute Deprivation

The theory also clarifies the distinction between relative deprivation and absolute deprivation or poverty. Absolute deprivation occurs when individuals lack the basic necessities of life, posing
potential threats to survival. In contrast, relative deprivation focuses on comparative disadvantages that may not necessarily threaten survival but impact perceptions of inequality and justice
[1].

Formal Definitions and Theoretical Clarifications

Walter Runciman was pivotal in providing one of the first formal definitions of relative deprivation, emphasizing the importance of not only desiring but also realistically obtaining what others
possess [5]. This nuanced understanding helps in comprehensively grasping the triggers of social discontent and unrest, making RDT a crucial theoretical tool in social sciences.

Relative Deprivation and Social Movements

Key Concepts in Relative Deprivation Theory and Social Movements

Understanding Relative Deprivation

Relative deprivation is a critical concept in understanding the dynamics of social movements. It refers to the feeling of being worse off compared to others within one's social circle or
community. This perceived disparity often motivates individuals to engage in collective actions to address inequalities and achieve parity [1].

Examples of Social Movements Influenced by Relative Deprivation

1. U.S. Civil Rights Movement: This movement was significantly driven by a collective sense of deprivation among African Americans, who felt deprived of the civil liberties and rights
afforded to their white counterparts [1].
2. Same-Sex Marriage Movement: Advocates felt a deprivation of rights and social recognition that were available to heterosexual couples, propelling the movement forward [1].

The Role of Relative Deprivation in Social Change

Relative deprivation theory suggests that social movements arise when individuals feel deprived of resources or rights that they perceive as essential. This deprivation is not merely about
economic or material disparities but also includes social and political dimensions [1]. The theory helps explain why individuals choose to engage in social movements and under what conditions
they are more likely to take action.

Factors Influencing Participation in Social Movements

Perception of Possibility for Change: Individuals are more likely to participate in activism if they believe that their actions can lead to desired changes [1].
Availability of Resources and Opportunities: The presence of support systems and resources can facilitate involvement in social movements, allowing individuals to organize and
mobilize effectively [1].

Developmental Stages of Social Movements

Social movements typically evolve through several stages, which include:

Gestation: This initial stage is characterized by growing awareness and discontent among the population. It often involves disputes over political legitimacy and a shared perception of
deprivation [7].
Consolidation and Bureaucratization: As movements gain momentum, they become more structured, developing formal organizations to better manage resources and coordinate
activities [7].
Decline: Eventually, many movements either achieve their goals, fail to maintain momentum, or adapt to new socio-political contexts, leading to a decline in active participation [7].

Comparative Analysis: Fraternal vs. Selfish Deprivation

Garry Runciman's distinction between fraternal and selfish deprivation provides a deeper understanding of how relative deprivation influences social movements:

Fraternal Deprivation: Often arises from perceived social discrimination and can influence collective actions and voting behaviors, particularly in support of movements addressing social
inequalities [4].
Selfish Deprivation: Originates from an individual's unfavorable comparison with others, potentially leading to actions aimed at improving one's own social position [4].

These insights into relative deprivation and its impact on social movements highlight the complex interplay between individual perceptions, collective identities, and socio-political actions.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial for comprehending the mechanisms behind social change and the role of social movements in shaping societal norms and policies.

The Psychological Impact of Relative Deprivation

Impact on Aggressive Behavior and Hostility

Studies have shown that relative deprivation, characterized by the feeling of being worse off than others, significantly impacts aggressive affect more than one's absolute status. This
phenomenon was evident in experiments where participants in low-absolute status conditions exhibited more hostility than those in high-absolute status conditions [8][1]. Furthermore, the
manipulation of relative status had a more pronounced effect on state hostility than the manipulation of absolute status [8][1]. This suggests that having less than others can trigger stronger
feelings of aggression compared to simply lacking positive emotionality [8][5].

Influence on Life Satisfaction and Resilience

Relative deprivation negatively correlates with life satisfaction, indicating that higher levels of perceived deprivation lead to lower levels of life satisfaction [9][3]. The relationship between
relative deprivation and life satisfaction is mediated by individuals' belief in a just world and their resilience. A serial mediating effect was observed, where a diminished belief in a just world
could lower resilience, thereby decreasing life satisfaction [9][5]. This highlights the psychological toll that perceived inequalities can have on individuals' overall well-being.

Predictive Role in Aggressive Behavior Among College Students

Research focusing on college students has demonstrated that relative deprivation significantly predicts aggressive behavior [11][10]. The belief in a just world mediates this relationship,
suggesting that how individuals perceive fairness and justice plays a crucial role in their behavioral responses to deprivation [11][12]. Additionally, moral disengagement was found to regulate
the first half of the mediator effect path in the relationship between relative deprivation, belief in a just world, and aggressive behavior, indicating a complex interplay of psychological factors
[11][4].

General Well-being and the Paradox of Happiness

Relative deprivation not only reduces feelings of well-being and happiness but also provides a plausible explanation for the paradox observed in societal happiness trends. Despite sharp rises in
income, average happiness has remained constant or even declined, a phenomenon that studies attribute to worsening conditions of relative poverty [13][1][13][5]. This underscores the
importance of addressing relative deprivation as a policy target, especially given its implications for societal contentment and mental health [13][12].

Workplace Perceptions and Gender Differences

In the workplace, relative deprivation can lead to significant feelings of dissatisfaction, discontent, and stress [5]. These feelings often arise from comparisons individuals make with their peers
or from reflections on their own past or future socio-economic status [13][10]. Notably, gender differences in perceptions of joblessness reveal that women tend to view joblessness as a standard
condition for their gender and are less likely to perceive it as painful compared to men, who view male joblessness as more difficult [2]. This highlights the subjective nature of relative
deprivation and its varied impacts across different demographic groups.

Relative Deprivation in the Workplace

Factors Leading to Relative Deprivation

Wage Disparity

Wage disparity, especially among employees performing similar tasks, is a significant factor contributing to feelings of relative deprivation [5]. This disparity can become a source of discontent
when employees perceive that their compensation does not reflect their effort or skill level compared to their colleagues.

Promotion and Advancement Opportunities

The lack of opportunities for advancement or promotion within a company can also foster feelings of relative deprivation [5]. Employees who see their peers advancing in their careers while they
remain in the same position may feel undervalued and overlooked.

Access to Resources

Inadequate access to necessary resources or training can lead to a sense of being disadvantaged compared to colleagues who are better equipped to perform their tasks [5]. This can affect an
employee's ability to work efficiently and progress in their career.

Job Assignments and Workload

Perceived unfairness in job assignments or the distribution of workload can contribute to feelings of relative deprivation [5]. When employees feel burdened with more work compared to others
or believe that job assignments are not distributed equitably, it can lead to dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice.

Discrimination

Discrimination in the workplace, whether based on race, gender, age, or other personal characteristics, can significantly lead to feelings of relative deprivation [5]. Such discrimination can
prevent individuals from accessing the same opportunities as their peers, further enhancing feelings of inequity.

Impact on Workplace Dynamics

Productivity and Motivation

Relative deprivation in the workplace can lead to decreased productivity and motivation among employees [5]. When workers feel undervalued or perceive inequality in their work environment,
their engagement and output can significantly decline.

Employee Turnover

High levels of relative deprivation can contribute to higher turnover rates, as employees may seek more equitable environments [5]. This can pose challenges for organizations in retaining
skilled workers and maintaining a stable workforce.

Comparative Insights on Workplace Deprivation

Migrant Workers

Studies have shown that both Eastern and Western migrants often experience higher levels of deprivation compared to non-migrants, influencing their workplace experiences and perceptions
[2]. This demographic disparity highlights the broader social and economic factors that can exacerbate feelings of relative deprivation.

Influence of Salary Transparency

Research indicates that employees tend to work more hours, send more emails, and achieve higher sales when they discover that their managers earn more than previously assumed [14].
Conversely, a 10% increase in perceived peer earnings can lead to significant reductions in office hours, email correspondence, and sales [14]. These findings suggest that salary transparency
can have complex effects on employee behavior and highlight the importance of employers experimenting with transparency to understand employee preferences [14].

These aspects of relative deprivation in the workplace underscore the need for organizational policies that promote fairness and equity to enhance employee satisfaction and organizational
effectiveness.

Criticism and Counterarguments

Subjectivity and Individual Variability

Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT) has faced criticism for its inherently subjective nature, as feelings of deprivation can vary significantly among individuals. This variability makes it challenging
to apply the theory uniformly across different cases [3].

Neglect of Structural Factors

Critics argue that RDT excessively focuses on individual experiences, often overlooking the broader structural factors that contribute to feelings of deprivation. This oversight can lead to an
incomplete understanding of the roots of social inequalities [3].

Operational Challenges

The lack of clear operationalization in RDT has been a major point of critique. This ambiguity complicates the empirical testing of the theory, raising questions about its scientific robustness [3].

Victim Mentality
RDT is critiqued for potentially fostering a 'victim mentality', where individuals may attribute their personal and social issues to external circumstances rather than taking personal
responsibility. This perspective could undermine the agency and empowerment of individuals [3].

Psychological Complexity

Some researchers believe that RDT does not fully consider the complex interplay between relative deprivation and other psychological factors such as self-esteem and locus of control. This
omission can lead to a simplistic interpretation of human behavior and motivation [3].

Cultural and Contextual Limitations

The applicability of RDT across different cultural contexts has been questioned. Critics contend that the theory may not universally apply to all forms of social inequality, limiting its usefulness
in diverse global contexts [3].

Inaction Despite Deprivation

RDT does not always explain why some individuals, despite feeling deprived, do not engage in social movements. This gap in the theory suggests that other factors may influence the decision to
take action or remain passive [1].

Empathy and Sympathy

The theory often overlooks the motivations of individuals who participate in social movements out of empathy or sympathy rather than personal feelings of deprivation. This oversight can skew
the understanding of what drives social actions [1].
Potential for Social Unrest

RDT has been criticized for its potential to incite social unrest and conflict. By emphasizing comparisons with others, the theory can intensify feelings of injustice, possibly leading to increased
social tension [3].

Addressing Structural Inequalities

While RDT focuses on perceived inequalities, addressing actual structural inequalities is crucial for reducing social unrest and enhancing social stability [1].

Relevance in Criminology

Relative deprivation theory has been central to the left realist tradition in criminology, which posits that relative economic deprivation is a key cause of crime. This application highlights the
theory's relevance beyond social movements into other areas of social behavior [15].

Conflict-Avoidance and Short-Term Orientation

Critics of RDT also highlight that not all individuals who feel discontent are inclined to take action. Factors such as conflict-avoidance, short-term orientation, and the uncertainty of achieving
improvement through social action can deter participation in movements [5].

Sympathy in Social Movements

The theory is sometimes critiqued for not adequately explaining why some individuals engage in social movements for reasons other than personal deprivation, such as out of sympathy for
others [4].

Conclusion
Throughout this comprehensive exploration of Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT) and its multifaceted impact on social change, we've traversed through its origins, development, application
across various domains such as social movements, workplace dynamics, and psychological influences, as well as entertained critical viewpoints and counterarguments. The discussions have not
only emphasized the theory's significance in understanding the underpinnings of social discontent and movements but also shed light on psychological reactions to perceived inequalities, thus
reinforcing the theory's utility in diagnosing the causes of societal unrest and formulating mitigation strategies.

The implications of RDT stretch beyond academic discourse, penetrating deep into the realms of policy-making, organizational behavior, and individual mindfulness about societal structures. By
acknowledging the complexity of perceived deprivation and its ripple effects across social, economic, and personal dimensions, we glean insights into the nuanced interplay between individual
experiences of deprivation and broader socio-political phenomena. Such understanding prompts a call for further research into the intricate dynamics of relative deprivation, advocating for
policies and interventions that target both the symptoms and the systemic roots of social inequities.

FAQs
1. What is the core concept of relative deprivation theory?
Relative deprivation theory posits that individuals feel deprived or entitled based on comparisons with others. This theory suggests that feelings of deprivation occur when people perceive that
they have less than a comparative standard.

2. How does relative deprivation theory explain social behavior?

Relative deprivation theory indicates that the subjective feeling of being worse off compared to others is a more accurate predictor of hostility than the actual level of well-being. This theory
highlights how perceived inequalities, rather than absolute conditions, can influence social attitudes and behaviors.

3. What does relative deprivation theory claim about social movements?

According to relative deprivation theory, individuals who perceive themselves as deprived of essentials such as money, rights, political voice, or status are likely to organize or participate in
social movements aimed at securing these essentials.

4. Can you provide an example of how deprivation theory applies to social movements?
An example of deprivation theory in social movements is the women's rights movement. Historically, women were considered second-class citizens with lower social status than men, limited to
roles within the home and family, and discouraged from pursuing higher education or careers. This perceived deprivation of rights and status fueled their collective action for equal rights.

References
[1] - https://www.thoughtco.com/relative-deprivation-theory-4177591
[2] - https://wol.iza.org/articles/relative-deprivation-in-the-labor-market/long
[3] - https://study.com/academy/lesson/relative-deprivation-in-psychology-theory-definition.html
[4] - https://www.toolshero.com/sociology/relative-deprivation-theory/
[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation
[6] - https://dictionary.apa.org/relative-deprivation
[7] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2022.2053268
[8] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6618103/
[9] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.725373/full
[10] - https://academic.oup.com/book/32304/chapter/268533403
[11] - https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-023-01272-6
[12] -
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Sociology_(Boundless)/21%3A_Social_Change/21.03%3A_Social_Movements/21.3E%3A_Relative_Deprivation_Approach
[13] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129/
[14] - https://community.macmillanlearning.com/t5/psychology-blog/how-much-did-you-say-my-coworkers-make-an-example-of-relative/ba-p/6509
[15] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7941342/