Chapter EightPolitical process Theory1.The contextGiven their intertwined history, resource mobilization and political process theories may be seen as twin responses to the same social, political, cultural, and intellectual context of the 1960s. As noted in the previous chapter, the seemingly tranquil surface of American life in the 1950s was soon to be shattered by a cascade of social movements at home and tumultuous interventions and entanglements abroad. these broad social changes triggered a parallel change in sociological thinking. McCarthy and zald's advocacy of resource mobilization ideas as well as tilly and Oberschall's articulation of the political process model. These social, political, intellectual, disciplinary, and generational processes reoriented social movement theory from psychologically rooted, grievance- driven, strain-induced explanations of collective behaviour to rationally grounded, resource-base, political interpretations of collective action.2.Tilly’s analysisThe first thing we need to do is define what Tilly means by 'social movement.' He differed from many other scholars who wrote about social movements because he provides us with a more specific definition of social movements. Think back to the opening of this lesson. Charles Tilly would consider some of these scenarios social movements, but not all of them. More specifically, Tilly considers protests different from social movements. Social movements need to have a few specific things to fit Tilly's definition. At the most basic level social movements are all about social interaction. Tilly argues that social movements do this through WUNC, an acronym he came up with that means worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment. Worthiness is the way people within the movement present themselves. It might be things like always keeping a serious demeanour during a protest. Unity is a way that a social movement expresses that it's united around a cause.3.mcadam’s modelThe first critical observation is that resource mobilization theory tends to blur the distinction between excluded groups and established polity members. Thus resource mobilization theory may be least relevant precisely where social movements differentiate themselves most clearly from routine forms of political contention. The second criticism concerns elite founding sources, which resource mobilization theory implies ”are willing, even aggressive sponsors of social insurgency". The third criticism is that resource mobilization neglects or minimizes the role of the mass base of movements. finally criticism concerns grievances. In their efforts to move away from a “hearts and minds” approach, McCarthy and zald imply that grievances are a constant background factor that cannot explain the variable appearance of movement.4.TARROW’S EMBELLISHMENTShe argues that all movements face a collective action problem, but it is not how to get individuals to act on behalf of collective goods but rather how to solve the social problem of "coordinating unorganized autonomous and dispersed populations into common and sustained action". he traces how this new modular from of collective action was made possible by increases in literacy, new forms of association, patterns of diffusion. some form of political opportunity brings about to emerge because of changing conditions. bring about any process or event that increases access to participation improves magnificence opportunity for groups to mobilize. in another word, the breakthrough the power of movement also reside in a diverse repertoire of contention.5.CONCLUSIONThis chapter has chronicled three major figures in the establishment of the political process model. this chapter too Logic was, of course, an important voice in the debate on collective behaviour and was not written in a scientific and scholarly vacuum. In the 1960s, not only economists but anthropologists as well as anthropologists focused on how individuals make choices, but later on they focused a little more on the political process, and Tilly backs up McCarthy and Jed's theories. the first time I think it was the explicit repudiation or implicit marginalization of grievances that helped pave the way for the next major paradigm in the study of the social movement.6. QuestionHow can society use tool incentives to engage certain individuals in collective action?7. Highlight wordIndividuals, Collective Action, mobilized, anthropologists, critical observation
This chapter talks about the changes in socialization from the 1950s through the 60s to the 70s. Here, Olson's 'Collective Action' played an important role.Olson’s logic suggests that the most effective collective actors will be groups that are relatively small and composed of individuals with relatively homogeneous interests. People will tend to associate with others who are like-minded in the sense of assigning similar values to the benefits they anticipate from collective action.
1.THE CONTEXTStrain and deprivation model relegates Marx and weber to supporting roles while bringing Durkheim back for an encore. I was thought about how the theory was universally recognized by the people. All members of society, from the well-to-do to the impoverished, ascribe to the “American dream” keep in mind that if one were simply willing to work hard enough, one would inevitably reap the economic rewards of such labours.
1. the contextThe sociology analyzed collective behaviour as an apolitical phenomenon and political science studied politics as an institutional system; nether was conceptually predisposed to examine the politics of social movement. This situation was partially redressed with the rise of political sociology as a subfield within sociology.2. a European importHeberle conceptualizes a social movement as a social collective whose
Chapter fourThe two Chicago schools1. THE CONTEXTWhen looking at the approach to Chicago sociology and groups in a unique intellectual environment, in some responses, Chicago sociology was the emergence of activism and pragmatism. Pragmatism thereby reinforced the processual approach of the Chicago school.it helped its practitioners see social reality not as static or fixed, but rather as an interactive outcome of people's action in the world.2.PARK AND BURGESS‘The crowd and the public’ books are provided with a bridge between late nineteenth century European crowd theory and early twentieth-century U.S collective behavior theory. on the basis theory, Robert park argued that all these traits are different manifestations of the same underlying condition of suggestibility that defining feature of the crowd.above all park's discussion of the public is more scattered and less completes, but it is evident that publics is a fundamentally different form of collective behavior.3. BLUMER’S COLLECTIVE BEHAVIORThe collective behavior of Blumer’s mainly studied the behaviors of people with social anxiety. The first is the basic mechanism of group action, as mentioned above, and social anxiety. the second is popular excitement which relies on milling while developing more focused objectives.Finally, institutionalization, in which "the movement has crystallized in to fixed organization with a definite personnel and structure to carry into execution the purposes of the movement"4. CONCLUSIONThe Crowd seems to be the template not just for their overall theory even as they seek to extend it to extend it to other types of collective behavior. In other words, I think episodes of collective action tend to be spontaneous and arise from experiences shared by group members that evoke common interests and identities.5. QuestionHas progressive collective action increased in modern times?6. Highlight wordSocial unrest, collective action, institutionalization