Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Political Sociology
Political Sociology
Political Sociology
bmw
bfw bme
bfe
liberal conservative
party party
Availability of Non-Elites
Low High
Communal Totalitarian
Low Society Society
Accessibility
of Elites
Pluralist Mass
High Society Society
• James Davies
– "J" curve of declining rewards/expectations
– intolerable gap (like Gurr)
Davies J Curve of Rising Expectation Leading to Frustration
High
intolerable
expected want-get gap
Rewards
obtained
Low
Early Late
Time
Political Theory in 1970
• Masses were not politically informed or
rational in political attitudes or actions
(Converse)
• Pluralism required that elites remain
accessible but masses must be integrated into
intermediate associations (Kornhauser)
• Parties tended toward moderation, but masses
were susceptible to extremist appeals (Downs
and Smelser)
Political Theory 1970 Predictions
• nonroutine political action increased when times
were hard and social integration and social
control broke down
• nonroutine action increased as routine action
declined
• nonroutine participants were socially isolated
and politically uninvolved/uninformed
• nonroutine action was ineffective/expressive
(emotional rather than rational)
Viewed From Functional Theory
• Routine action indicated value consensus and
integration
• Non-routine action was indicative of "anomie"
and malintegration
• Protests, demonstrations, marches, and riots
of 1950s and 1960s were dysfunctional
• society was out of balance/equilibrium,
moving toward anarchy and chaos
Viewed From Conflict Perspective
• Sociologists sympathetic with movements of
the Fifties and Sixties: Civil Rights, Students,
Anti-War
• Challenged Functional theory
• Argued that protesters were as rational as
people who studied them
• Celebrated the awakening of American
democracy
Evidence Challenging Functional
Theory
• Jeff Paige (Oct 1971, ASR) survey of 237 black
men in Newark, NJ
– riot participants had high efficacy and low trust of
government
– rioters were knowledgeable but distrustful
– Rioters were knowledgeable but less trustful
compared to civil rights activists
Percent Participation by Trust in
Government
0.7
Rioting
0.8
0.6 0.7
0.5 0.6 Rioting
0.4
0.5
low info Civil
0.4
0.3 high info Rights
0.3
0.2
Voting
0.2
0.1
0.1
0 0
high mid low high mid low
trust trust trust trust trust trust
Evidence (continued)
• Feagin and Hahn, Ghetto Revolts (1973)
• Methodological distinctions
– Pluralist focus on public policy decisions and
public meetings
– Ruling elite focus on inter-organizational networks
and reputation for power/influence
Debate (continued)
• Theoretical arguments
– Liberals argue that poor people or non-elites have
to fight their way into the polity
– Elites promote non-decisions/status quo
– Political challenges predicted by
• Interests
• Organization
• opportunity
– Political challenges produce social change
Tilly’s Mobilization Model
Organization Interest
Mobilization
Repression/
Facilitation
Opportunity/ Power
Threat
Collective
Action
Source: Tilly (1978), p. 56
Tilly’s (1978) Interests
• Marxist: use class as “predictors of the interests people will pursue in the long run”
(p. 61); these are objective class interests
• Marx roots interests in the relations and modes of production and the relations
between and within classes—the relations of life and work
• Weber distinguishes class, status, and party interests, which may or may not predict
collective action.
Tilly’s (1978, p. 63) Organization
in Terms of Categories and Networks
high
Printers Union
All Brazilians Local
Catness
a tion
a niz
org
low high
Netness
Tilly (1978, p. 112) on Government Response to Challengers
Small
Facilitation
Scale of Toleration
Claim
Repression
Large
Weak Strong
Power of Group
Tilly’s Model of Collective Action Predicted by Power,
Mobilization, and Opportunity/Threat
∞
opportunity
Collective
Goods mobilization
Obtained
break even
0
threat
-1
Low High
Resources Expended
Power, Mobilization, and Opportunity/Threat: Tilly (1978)
Political Political
protest organization
Questions
• Where do rights come from?
– government?
– political challengers?
• Do rights matter?
Questions (continued)
• Consider rights movements
– Bill of Rights
– Right to unemployment compensation
– Right to collective bargaining
– Civil rights
– Welfare rights
Where Did These Rights Come
From?
• All of these rights were promoted by political
challengers
– Anti-federalists
– Unemployed workers
– Workers
– Blacks
– Welfare recipients
Rights (continued)
• All of these rights were granted by the state
– Federalist concessions: Bill of Rights
– FDR/Wagner: Wagner Act
– JFK/LBJ