Sociology 525: Social Movements
Spring 2010
Theories of Collective Behavior and Social Movements
My outline of topics for this section (in the syllabus) is
based on what I see as an historical progression of theories,
beginning with LeBon in the 1890s, when conservatives
attempted to understand the psychology of the mob, moving into
the 1950s, when conservatives attempted to understand the
social-structural conditions (particularly social disorganization
and social change) that produce mass rebellion and social
disorder.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the dominant theory of collective
behavior (called "collective behavior" theory and characterized
by Turner and Killian [1957, 1972, 1987] and Neil Smelser
[1963]) was clearly rooted in the conservative tradition of the
psychology of the mob and the breakdown of social control.
Generally, this theory was rooted in a Freudian theory of
frustration-aggression and a Durkheimian theory of social
control.
- The Psychology of the Mob
- LeBon: which you have read
- McPhail: which is an excellent survey of
psychological and social-psychological theories
- Rudé: historical analysis of crowds
- Zilborg: more sympathetic treatment of crowds
- Mass Society and Social Disorganization Theories
- Kornhauser: classic structural theory of mass society
- Gurr: social psychological theory of strain
- Davies: social psychology of rising expectations
2
This tradition was attacked by what appears to be a more
liberal, "collective choice" theory, represented by Olson (and,
more recently, by Brustein), who argue that collective action is
rational. Individual's are profit-maximizing rational actors who
engage in collective action (or refuse to engage in collective
action) based on their calculation of the costs and benefits.
- Collective Behavior versus Collective Choice
- Olson: whom you read
- Turner and Killian: classic collective behavior
- Smelser: classic collective behavior
- Oberschall: rational/collective chocie
- Brustein: rational choice
- Heckathorn: rational choice
- Opp: rational choice
- Marwell and Ames: critique of Olson/economists
3
In the 1970s, in the context of the debate between
collective behavior and collective choice theories on the
question of rationality, resource mobilization theory developed.
As developed by Tilly in 1978, this perspective is rooted in
Marxist theory, but it clearly shares some concerns with the
Weberians—particularly the concern with organization. It
differs from collective behavior and collective choice, primarily
in its more historical, structural perspective on the relationship
between social movements (or grassroots political struggles) and
social change (changes in the institutional structure). While
collective behavior has generally viewed social change as
producing collective behavior (including social movements),
collective choice has tended to view social movements as
producing social change. Resource mobilization theory has
attempted to specify the relationship.
4
- Resource Mobilization Theory
- Tilly: pioneer in resource mobilization theory
development (1978) and in historical analysis of
contention (1986, 1995, 2004)
- Gamson: major researcher in this area; did historical
analysis early (1990 [1975]; has done media studies
(1988, 1992, Gamson and Modigliani 1989) and
small groups (Gamson, Fireman, and Rytina 1982)
more recently.
- Feagin and Hahn (1973): early challenge to
collective behavior theory of ghetto riots; develop
neo-colonial (Marxist/Leninist) theory
- Piven and Cloward (1977): Lefty critique of politics
of welfare capitalism and trade unionism; argue
5
against resource mobilization preoccupation with
organization
- Morris (1984): critiques Zald and McCarthy (1987)
and other resource mobilization theories that focus
on importance of Northern sympathizers for Civil
Rights Movement
- McNall (1988): challenges ideological and mass
society theories of populism with Marxist class
analysis
Since resource mobilization theory has become the
dominant perspective on social movements (and collective
action), it has been challenged on two fronts. First, Skocpol
(1979, 1980) and others (Skowronek 1982) argued that we need
to "bring the state back in." We need to view social movements
in the context of political capacities and crises that create
6
revolutionary situations and outcomes and largely determine the
nature of political reform. This challenge inspired, to some
extent, the development of political process models (Tarrow
[1994] and McAdam [1982]), which (in my mind) provide a
useful corrective to resource mobilization theory.
- State Centered Theories
- Skocpol: student of Barrington Moore who takes on
Tilly and his students on Revolution
- Skowronek: American historian who offers analysis
of making of state in U.S. 19th Century
- Bensel: political scientist who offers more nuanced
analysis of class relations and commercial relations,
sectionalism and, most recently, elections
- Political Process Models
7
- Tarrow: seems most like Tilly, political scientist,
perhaps less Marxist; studies Italy
- McAdam: sociologist, Americanist; also a Tilly
collaborator; also does more social
psychological/identity politics, impact of activism,
etc.
The second challenge--new social movement theory is
more difficult to evaluate. On the one hand, it is a return to
psychological theories and the problem of ideology. On the
other hand, it is part of a postmodern-poststructural critique of
structural theories. Here it is less clear what the critique will
yield in inspiring re-evaluation of the resource mobilization
perspective. We can return to this question after we review the
various theories.
8
- New Social Movement Theory
- Epstein: not really a New Social Movements person,
but part of the new “cultural turn” in sociology
- Melucci: definitely New Social Movements
(European)
- Cohen (more of the same)
- Kriesi (and Kreisi, et. al.; more of the same)
- Offe (perhaps more critical/Marxist)
- Scott (perhaps more readable)
- Calhoun 1993: critiques New social movements
- Plotke: critiques New social movements
9