Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gurney, Tierney 1982
Gurney, Tierney 1982
Gurney, Tierney 1982
The relative deprivation perspective was widely employed in the social movement lit-
erature of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In spite of the growing popularity of some
newer approaches which criticize the relative deprivation perspective (resource mo-
bilization or resource management perspectives), there have been no attempts to
analyze and evaluate the relative deprivation perspective in any systematic fashion.
The purpose of this paper is to review some of the “classic” relative deprivation
literature in order to critically assess the perspective on the basis of its theoretical co-
herence and clarity and its empirical validity. The general conclusion reached is that
while the relative deprivation perspective was an advance over earlier approaches
which viewed social movements as resulting from the expression of irrational im-
pulses, the relative deprivation perspective is itself affected by too many serious con-
ceptual, theoretical, and empirical weaknesses to be useful in accounting for the emer-
gence and development of social movements.
Introduction
The concept of relative deprivation (RD) in the study of social movements is
practically as old as sociology itself. Although their references to RD were im-
plicit, both Marx and de Tocqueville developed formulations which have made
the transition into current social movement theory virtually intact. Writers in one
branch of the RD school use Marx’s “emiseration thesis” to emphasize the im-
portance of “relative” in relative deprivation (Bottomore, 1963). Tocqueville
brought the “rising expectations” argument into currency by noting that the
strongholds of the French Revolution were precisely those regions in which the
greatest improvements in the standard of living had occurred and by observing
that any relaxation of an oppressive regime engenders expectations in the popu-
lace that further reforms are on the way. He asserted failure to deliver reforms
renders the situation increasingly intolerable to members of affected groups and
pushed revolutionary fervor to the point of explosion (cf. Tocqueville, 1955).
RD gained its present-day status and importance through its extensive use as
an analytic and interpretive tool in The American Soldier (Stouffer et al., 1949).
R D was employed as an “interpretive intervening variable” (Merton and Kitt,
1950:45 ) to explain the relationship between background characteristics such
as age, education, and marital status and soldiers’ attitudes toward army life. At-
titudes were seen as differing depending upon what group the individual used as
a standard of comparison-other soldiers, comparable civilians, and so on.
Beginning in the 1960s a number of social movement (SM) scholars used the
RD concept in both theoretical and empirical work. This emphasis peaked late
in that decade, with numerous published studies linking urban civil disturbances
to various objective and subjective deprivations. In contrast with that period,
which emphasized social psychological aspects of movements, like RD, the dec-
ade of the 1970s has been marked by an increasing concern with SM organiza-
tion (cf. Oberschall, 1973, 1978; Gamson, 1975; McCarthy and Zald, 1973,
1977). Currently, attempts to link the emergence and growth of movements to
widespread feelings of deprivation appear to have given way to analyses which
emphasize the contribution of social solidarity to movement mobilization (Tilly,
1978; Traugott 1978) and the ways movements function as organizations, re-
cruiting members and mobilizing other resources to achieve collective ends.
Despite the fact that proponents of the organizational/resource mobilization per-
spective reject the R D approach, the notion of deprivation as a factor in move-
ment development and dynamics still retains considerable appeal (cf., Isaac,
Mutran, and Stryker, 1980; Useem, 1980). The time thus seems right for a sys-
tematic critical assessment of the concept as used in SM research.
To explore the extent to which R D approaches elucidate SM phenomena, we
present a critical review of some representative works in the literature. Our re-
view, while not exhaustive, does focus on a number of influential scholarly works
in the R D tradition. The critique consists of two major divisions, the first dealing
with conceptual and theoretical issues and the second focusing on the conduct of
empirical research. We consider RD theory and research separately because, as
we later show, problems in one cannot be totally eliminated by attempts to im-
prove upon the other.
In advancing this critique we recognize that many of the points we raise have
appeared previously in the works of others (McPhail, 1971; Turner and Killian,
1972; Snyder and Tilly, 1972; McCarthy and Zald, 1973; Berk, 1974; Orum,
1974). However, we have pulled together and synthesized these widely scattered
commentaries into a systematic and coherent portrait of the contribution RD
has made to the study of SM’s.
model, in describing the RD/SM linkage. Scholars also discount the possibility
that SM’s themselves may be instrumental in producing perceptions of RD. It is
possible structural inequality may exist prior to SM formation, but the perception
of it-which RD theorists maintain is the most important factor explaining move-
ment participation-may arise only after the movement has begun to do its work
(Portes, 1971). Because RD research is typically post hoc, it cannot show
whether perceptions of RD were a cause or a consequence of collective action.
Design of the research and adequacy of findings. We now briefly discuss the
empirical literature in terms of the extent to which studies show that RD and
S M s are associated wth one another; whether it has been demonstrated that
changes in RD levels are accompanied by changes in SM phenomena; whether
Relative Deprivation and Social Movements 41
RD has been shown to precede SM activity in time; and whether alternative ex-
planations which might account for social movement emergence or individual
participation are considered.
1 . Association between RD and SM’s: Empirical work on the topic fails con-
vincingly to demonstrate that RD and SM’s are associated. The typical strategy
for such research is to find situations where SM activity is present and to look
there for evidence of RD. This approach is seen in the work of Davies (1962,
1969) whose J-curve hypothesis is illustrated via brief historical accounts of
such events as the French Revolution and Dorr’s Rebellion. Each example he
presents supports the J-curve idea; there are no negative cases mentioned-no
attempt to determine whether any revolution occurred without a J-curve, and no
cases in which rising expectations were not followed by a revolution. Much of
the quantitative research also fails to provide evidence of the existence of RD
independent of the existence of SM activity. Findings which demonstrate that all
B (movement participants) are A (relatively deprived) cannot be used to sup-
port statements about the extent to which members of A are members of B. A
more valid approach would measure RD within heterogeneous populations and
then seek data on movement activity among individuals or in societies manifest-
ing different levels of RD.
A second caution against accepting findings showing an association between
RD and SM’s is that “we cannot in general infer from synchronic to diachronic
correlation” (Galtung, 1967 :472). Empirical associations between two variables
found by means of data gathered at a single point in time cannot be used as evi-
dence for a broader, continuing association between the variables unless much
more is either known or assumed about the strength and the direction of causal
connections and the stability of contextual factors over time.
Finally, the argument for an association between RD and SM‘s is countered
by other research (Lauer, 1972; Nelson, 1970; O m , 1972) which fails to give
support for RD hypotheses.
2. Covuriation: It is commonly argued RD contributes to SM’s because
changes in RD levels are linked with changes in movement activity. While argu-
ments are made to show that there is concomitant variation of the two phe-
nomena, two weaknesses call these arguments into question: the lack of time
reference in the research and the lack of attention to the question of what consti-
tutes a critical level of RD.
Assertions about causal relationships which do not contain time specifications
are unfalsifiable because, in a given unit, changes in any X will be followed by
changes in some Y, if sufficient time is permitted to lapse (Gibbs, 1972). Most
RD studies refer to time only sketchily, if at all. Davies (1969) in his essay on
the relationship between need satisfaction and revolution, seems to believe there
is a relatively short time lapse-about two years-between frustrating social
changes and societal dislocation, but this is never stated explicitly. Gum confuses
the issue further by suggesting that a comparatively short “critical period” may
occur soon after the satisfaction of a salient value starts to decrease and that,
over time, “levels of value expectation or the salience of values, or both, are
likely to decline; the victim is likely to become resigned to this condition” (1970:
80). Thus, researchers’ claims that covariation of RD and SM phenomena has
been demonstrated should be viewed with skepticism.
42 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
Conclusion
This paper began with a discussion of the theoretical bases of RD theory, judging
its assertions against standards of logical and conceptual adequacy. We uncov-
ered difficulties with RD formulations originating from two major sources: the
reluctance of SM analysts to come to terms with troublesome problems of defi-
nition and categorization of RD phenomena; and, perhaps even more serious,
weaknesses in the theoretical models and the image of group behavior that form
the underpinnings of the RD perspective. Critiques of convergence theories of
collective behavior and of oversimplified, mechanistic approaches to the frustra-
tion-aggression link have become so widely supported that they vitiate even the
most sophisticated RD arguments.
We next approached the issue of empirical adequacy, asking “Does empirical
research lend tenability to statements that RD is a cause of social movements?”
We pointed out little light was shed on the RD-SM link, because divergent theo-
retical perspectives were combined with different measurement approaches and
energetic, but uneven, research efforts to create a variegated and highly incon-
clusive body of research. A critical evaluation of a number of R D studies led us
to answer this question in the negative.
Our discussion of the theoretical and empirical adequacy of the RD perspec-
tive supports Berk’s assertion that “currently, relative deprivation theory is sim-
ply too haphazard to be useful as its proponents suggest” ( 1974:52). In advanc-
ing this critique we have organized and systematized the kinds of criticisms that
have appeared elsewhere into a coherent evaluation of the RD perspective as
a whole.
44 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
Given the internal weaknesses of and lack of empirical support for RD theory
and given the growing disillusionment with it, why has the perspective persisted?
We do not purport to have the monopoly on truth in this regard, but we can
offer several constructive hypotheses. One possible explanation is that RD the-
ory was a distinct improvement over earlier approaches which emphasized the
irrationality or pathological needs of participants in social movements and other
forms of collective behavior. For example, concepts like “generalized excitement”
(Blumer, 1951) resemble contagion arguments in that they suggest individuals
shed “civilizing” influeiices in collective behavior episodes. Similarly, widely
used “riffraff’ and “conspiracy” notions of social movements depict participants
as deviant, easily manipulated, or otherwise unlike ordinary members of society.
Rather than adopting the conservative reasoning behind these views or depicting
the behavior of movement partisans as motivated primarily by unconscious, irra-
tional, or destructive urges, as have some writers (cf., Freud, 1921; Hoffer,
1951) , RD theorists suggest movement participants are fully socialized individ-
uals who are rightly concerned with getting their share of valued goods. The RD
approach gained currency and persists because, by locating the roots of SM phe-
nomena in normal psychological processes such as dissonance-reduction, it both
simplifies explanation of SMs and removes some of the stigma of SM participa-
tion. Although it downplays these negative images, RD still maintains the tradi-
tional distinction between collective protest and such institutionalized political
activities as lobbying. It remained for later approaches to minimize the distinc-
tion between institutionalized and emergent social behavior (Turner and Killian,
1972; Marx and Wood, 1975). Resource mobilization represents the most recent
development in this direction.
Another reason R D theories have appeal may be that they are compatible
with the voluntaristic and nominalistic image of social behavior that dominates
American sociology (Hinkle and Hinkle, 1954). R D writers view individuals,
rather than groups, as the primary social actors. They emphasize motives as the
wellsprings of SM phenomena. And they view social trends as additive; i.e., as
the result of the spreading of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors through a popula-
tion.
Another possible explanation is that, besides having “good fit” with dominant
theoretical orientations in the discipline, the R D approach to SM’s served an
ideological function for students of social movements. Use of the model enabled
researchers to acknowledge the appropriateness of protest and at the same time
downplay issues of political and economic inequity in society. This finesse was
accomplished primarily through emphasis on the perceptual dimension: because
R D formulations focus on the role of perceptions in individual and collective re-
sponses to inequality, the possibility that purposive collective action against soci-
etal inequality is reality-based as well as socially generated is deemphasized. By
arguing that injustice is in the eye of the beholder, scholars could simultaneously
justify protest movements and avoid condemning societal institutions. As Skol-
nick suggests in his critique of riot theories, RD arguments rely heavily on “the
substitution of a psychological analysis for a political one” (1969:338). In other
words, while seeking to avoid identification with the interests of the agents of
social control and with those who try to discredit all who would protest, R D the-
orists also avoided probing the political bases of inequality and collective action.
Relative Deprivation and Social Movements 45
REFERENCES
Aberle, David. 1966. The Peyote Religion Among the Navaho. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research.
Acock. Alan, and Melvin DeFleur. 1972. “A configurational approach to contingent consistency in the
attitude and behavior relationships.” American Sociological Review 37 (December) :71&26.
Andrews, K. and D. Kandel. 1979. “Attitudes and behavior: a specification of the contingent consistency
hypothesis.” American Sociological Review 44 (April) :298-310.
Berk, Richard. 1974. Collective Behavior. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown.
Berkowitz, Leonard. 1969. “The frustration-aggression hypothesis revisited.” Pp. 1-28 in Leonard Berkowitz
(ed.), Roots of Aggression. New York: Atherton Press.
Blumer, Herbert. 1951. “Collective behavior.” Pp. 208-10 in A. M. Lee (ed.), Principles of Sociology. New
York: Barnes and Noble.
Bottomore, T. B. 1963. Karl Marx: Early Writings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bowen, Don, Elinor Bowen, Sheldon Galoiser, and Louis H. Masotti. 1968. “Deprivation, mobility and orien-
tation toward protest of the urban poor.” American Behavioral Scientist (March-April) :20-24.
Buss, Arnold. 1961. The Psychology of Aggression. New York: John Wiley.
Crawford, Thomas, and Murray Naditch. 1970. “Relative deprivation, powerlessness, and militancy: the
psychology of social protest.” Psychiatry 33 (May) :208-23.
Davies, James. 1962. “Toward a theory of revolution.” American Sociological Review 27 (February) :5-19.
-. 1969. “The J-CUNe of rising and declining satisfactions as a cause of some great revolutions and a
contained rebellion.” Pp. 547-76 in H. D. Graham and T. R. Gurr (eds.), Violence in America: Historical
and Comparative Perspectives. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office.
-. 1971. When Men Revolt and Why: A Reader in Political Violence and Revolution. New York:
Free Press.
DeFleur, M., and F. Westie. 1958. “Verbal attitudes and overt acts: an experiment on the salience of
attitudes.” American Sociological Review 23 (October) :667-73.
Deutscher, Irwin. 1966. “Words and deeds: social science and social policy.” Social Problems 13 (Winter):
235-54.
Dollard, John, Leonard Doob, Neal Miller, 0. Mowrer, and Robert Sears. 1939. Frustration and Aggres-
sion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
46 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY
Feierabend, Ivo, Rosalind Feierabend, and Betty Nesvold. 1969. “Social change and political violence: cross
national patterns.” Pp. 497-545 in H. D. Graham and T. R. Gurr (eds.), Violence in America: Historical
and Comparative Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Otlice.
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Fireman, B., and W. Gamson. 1979. “Utilitarian logic in the resource mobilization perspective.” In Mayer
Zald and John McCarthy (eds.), The Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Con-
trol and Tactics. Cambridge: Winthrop Publisher.
Freud, Sigmund. 1921. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. London: Hogarth.
Galtung, Johan. 1967. Theory and Methods of Social Research. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gamson, William. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey.
Geschwender, James. 1964. “Social structure and the Negro revolt: an examination of some hypotheses.”
Social Forces 43 (December) :248-56.
-. 1968. “Explorations in the theory of social movements and revolutions.” Social Forces 47 (Decem-
ber) :127-35.
Geschwender, James A,, Benjamin D. Singer, and Richard W. Osborn. 1969. “Social Isolation and Riot
Participation.” Paper presented at annual meetings of American Sociological Association.
-, and Benjamin Singer. 1970. “Deprivation and the Detroit riot.” Social Problems 17 (Spring) :457-63.
Gibbs, Jack. 1972. Sociological Theory Construction. Hinsdale, 111. : Dryden Press
Grofman, B., and E. Muller. 1973. “The strange case of relative gratification and potential for political
violence: the V-curve hypothesis.” American Political Science Review 67 :514-39.
Gurr, Ted. 1969. “A comparative study of civil strife.” Pp. 443-91 in H.D. Graham and T. R. Gurr (eds.),
Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
-. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
*
Hinkle, Roscoe, and Gisela Hinkle. 1954. The Development of Modern Sociology. New York: Random
House.
Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer. New York: Harper and Row.
Isaac, L., E. Mutran, and S. Stryker. 1980. “Political protest orientations among black and white adults.”
American Sociological Review 45 (April) :191-213.
Jenkins, C., and C. Perrow. 1977. “Insurgency of the powerless: farm workers’ movements (1946-72):’
American Sociological Review 42 (April) : 24948.
Korpi, Walter. 1974. “Conflict, power, and relative deprivation.” American Political Science Review 38
(December) :1569-78.
Lauer, Robert. 1972. “Social movements: an interactionist analysis.” The Sociological Quarterly 13 (Sum-
mer): 315-28.
Leites, Nathan, and Charles Wolf, Jr. 1970. Rebellion and Authority. Chicago: Markham.
Lenski, Gerhard. 1954. “Status crystallization : a non-vertical dimension of social status.” American Socio-
logical Review 19 (August) :405-13.
-. 1956. “Social participation and status crystallization.” American Sociological Review 21 (August) :
458-64.
Liska, Allen. 1974. “Emergent issues in the attitude-behavior consistency controversy.” American Socio-
logical Review 39 (April) :261-72.
McCarthy, John, and Mayer Zald. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization
and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, N.J. : General Learning Press.
-. 1977. “Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory.” American Journal of Sociol-
ogy 82 (May) :1212-41.
McPhail, Clark. 1971. “Civil disorder participation: a critical examination of recent research.” American
Sociological Review 36 (December) :1058-73.
Marx, G. 1967. Protest and Prejudice: A Study of Belief in the Black Community. New York: Harper and
Row.
-, and J. Wood. 1975. “Strands of theory and research in collective behavior.” Annual Review of So-
ciology l :363-428.
Marx, J., and B. Holmer. 1977. “The social construction of strain and ideological models of grievance in
contemporary movements.” Pacific Sociological Review (August) : 41 1-33.
Merton, Robert, and A. Kitt. 1950. “Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior.” In R. Mer-
ton and P. Lazarsfeld (eds.), Studies in the Scope and Method of The American Soldier. Glencoe, Ill.: Free
Press.
Miller, Neal. 1941. “The frustration-aggression hypothesis.” Psychological Review 48 (July) :337-42.
Relative Deprivation and Social Movements 47
Morrison, Denton. 1973. “Some notes toward theory on relative deprivation, social movements, and social
change.” Pp. 103-16 in R. R. Evans (ed.), Social Movements: A Reader and Source Book. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
-, and Allan Steeves. 1967. “Deprivation, discontent, and social movement participation: evidence on
a contemporary farmers’ movement, the NFO.” Rural Sociology 32 (December) :414-34.
Nelson, Joan. 1970. “The urban poor: disruption or political integration in third world cities?” World Poli-
tics 22 (April) :393414.
Oberschall, Anthony. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
-. 1978. “Theories of social conflict.” Annual Review of Sociology 4:291-315.
Oliver, P. 1980. “Rewards and punishments as selective incentives for collective action: theoretical investi-
gations.” American Journal of Sociology 85: 135675.
Orum, Anthony. 1972. Black Students in Protest: A Study of the Origins of the Black Student Movement.
Arnold and Caroline Rose Monograph Series. Washington, D.C. : American Sociological Association.
-. 1974. “On participation in political protest movements.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
10:181-207.
Pinard, Maurice, Jerome Kirk, and Donald von Eschen. 1969. “Processes of recruitment in the sit-in move-
ment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 33 (Fall) :355-69.
Portes, Alejandro. 1971. “On the logic of post-factum explanations: the hypothesis of lower-class frustra-
tion as the cause of leftist radicalism.” Social Forces 50 (September) :26-44.
Runciman, W. 1966. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sayles, Marnie. 1981. “Relative deprivation and collective protest: an impoverished theory?” Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Toronto.
Schuman, H., and M. Johnson. 1976. “Attitudes and behavior.” Pp. 161-207 in A. Inkeles, J. Coleman,
and N. Smelser ( e d s . ) , Annual Review of Sociology 2. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.
Searles, Ruth, and J. Allen Williams, Jr. 1962. “Negro college students’ participation in sit-ins.” Social
Forces 40 (March) :215-20.
Sears, D., and J. McConahay. 1970. “Racial socialization, comparison levels, and the Watts riot.” Journal
of Social Issues 26:12140.
Skolnick, James. 1969. The Politics of Protest. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Snyder, David, and Charles Tilly. 1972. “Hardship and collective violence in France, 1830 to 1960.” Ameri-
can Sociological Review 37 (October) :520-32.
Stouffer, S., E. Suchman, L. DeVinney, S. Star, and R. Williams. 1949. The American Soldier. Vols. 1 4 .
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, M a s . : Addison-Wesley.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1955. The Old Regime and the French Revolution. Stuart Gilbert (trans.). Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company.
Traugott, M. 1978. “Reconceiving social movements.” Social Problems 26 :3&49.
Turner, Ralph. 1964. “Collective behavior. Pp. 382425 in R. E. L. Fans (ed.), Handbook of Modern So-
ciology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
-, and Lewis Killian. 1972. Collective Behavior, 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Useem, B. 1980. “Solidarity model, breakdown model, and the Boston anti-busing movement.” American
Sociological Review 45 (June) : 357-69.
Wicker, Allan. 1969. “Attitudes vs. action: the relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses t o
attitude objects.” Journal of Social Issues 25 (Autumn) :41-78.
Wilson, John. 1973. Introduction to Social Movements. New York: Basic Books.
Wilson, K., and A. Orum. 1976. “Mobilizing people for collective action.” Journal of Political and Mili-
tary Sociology 4:187-202.