This document discusses four theories of social movements: deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory, political process theory, and structural strain theory. It also explains the difference between collective behavior and collective action. Collective behavior is spontaneous, unstable, unpredictable, irrational, emotional, and non-traditional, whereas collective action is organized, stable, predictable, rational, interest-based, and follows established cultural norms and values. The four theories provide explanations for how and why social movements form based on factors like feelings of deprivation, availability of resources, political opportunities, and recognition of societal problems.
This document discusses four theories of social movements: deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory, political process theory, and structural strain theory. It also explains the difference between collective behavior and collective action. Collective behavior is spontaneous, unstable, unpredictable, irrational, emotional, and non-traditional, whereas collective action is organized, stable, predictable, rational, interest-based, and follows established cultural norms and values. The four theories provide explanations for how and why social movements form based on factors like feelings of deprivation, availability of resources, political opportunities, and recognition of societal problems.
This document discusses four theories of social movements: deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory, political process theory, and structural strain theory. It also explains the difference between collective behavior and collective action. Collective behavior is spontaneous, unstable, unpredictable, irrational, emotional, and non-traditional, whereas collective action is organized, stable, predictable, rational, interest-based, and follows established cultural norms and values. The four theories provide explanations for how and why social movements form based on factors like feelings of deprivation, availability of resources, political opportunities, and recognition of societal problems.
This document discusses four theories of social movements: deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory, political process theory, and structural strain theory. It also explains the difference between collective behavior and collective action. Collective behavior is spontaneous, unstable, unpredictable, irrational, emotional, and non-traditional, whereas collective action is organized, stable, predictable, rational, interest-based, and follows established cultural norms and values. The four theories provide explanations for how and why social movements form based on factors like feelings of deprivation, availability of resources, political opportunities, and recognition of societal problems.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY.
BIOPSYCHOLOGY.
NAME:
DEPARTMENT:
LECTURER:
BPO 290:
TASK:
I)Discuss four theories of social movements.
II) Explain clearly the difference between collective behavior and collective action. 4(I) Discuss four theories of social movement. INTRODUCTION Social movement is an organized effort by a large number of people to bring out social, political and economic or cultural change. There are some theories proposed to explain the birth and growth of social movement. Some of these theories are as follows; Deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory, political process theory and structural strain theory. 1.Deprivation theory According to scholars McAdam, McCarthy and Zald,1988, proposed that some social movements are born when certain group of people in a society feel that they are deprived of specific goods, service or resources. Within the deprivation theory camp, there were two branches: absolute deprivation and relative deprivation; the proponents of absolute deprivation treated these grievances of the affected group in isolation from that group’s position in society while the proponents of relative deprivation regarded a group to be in disadvantageous positions. The deprivation theory seemingly provides a powerful reason as to why some social movement maybe born, for instance one can argue that the feminist movement was born in 1960’s because prior to that time women were deprived by the society of rights and opportunities especially in terms of career that were only accorded to men. The weakness of the theory is that; it fails to explain why in some cases deprivation to ignite the birth of social movement. This gives rise to the suspicion that while the existence of a deprivation maybe be a necessary condition for the birth of a social movement, it may not be a sufficient condition for the social movement to be born. 2.Resource mobilization theory. According to (Dobson,2001; Foweraker 1995, McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1988; PhongPaichit, 1999), the resource mobilization theory invokes the importance of the availability of suitable resources in the rise of social movement. This theory thus says that when some individuals in a society have certain grievances, they may be able to mobilize necessary resource to do something to alleviate those grievances. The “resources” refer to things like money, labor, social status, knowledge, support of the media and political elites. One of the major criticisms of this theory is that it has an extremely strong “materialist” orientation in that it gives primacy to the presence of appropriate resources (especially money) in explaining the birth of social movements. This theory does provide a good explanation of why some social movements have been able to grow at an exponential rate even in the presence of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The civil rights in the United States are an example; the leaders of that movement primarily Maltin Luther King Jr and his colleagues in the Southern Christian leadership conference were able to successfully elicit the support of thousands of supporters in launching and propagating the movement. 3.Political process theory. Douglas McAdams is credited with first developing this theory via his study book of the Black Civil Rights Movement published in 1982. According to (Dobson, 2001; Foweraker,1995; PhogPaichit,1999, Tilly ,1978) political process theory treats social movement as a type of political movements in that the origin of a social movement are traced to the availability of political opportunities. If the government’s position is strongly entrenched and it is also prone to repressive behavior, then the chances are high that a social movement might fall. If, on the other hand, the government is weak or more tolerant of dissenting behaving then chances are high that any social movement that is born might have the opportunity to grow. Primary criticism of this theory is that it focuses too much on political circumstances and ignores cultural factors that might be strong enough to mitigates the effect of political factors. Foweraker (1995) looks at several examples of social movement in American countries and how the power of the state has affected the outcome of those movements. One of the poignant examples is where pro-democracy movements were brutally dealt with by the oppressive U.S government of General Augusto Pinochet. In Chile case, the ruthlessness of the state crushed the pro-democracy movements repeatedly, in West European countries the presence of friendly and cooperative national governments fueled the growth of the Green movement to what it is today. These two cases are vivid examples of how the outcome of social movements is intimately tied to the nature of the governments that these movements have to contend with. 4.Structural strain theory The structural strain theory was proposed by Smelser (1965). The theory advocates that any nascent social movement needs six factors to grow. The six factors are: People in society experience some type of problems(deprivation); recognition by the people of that society that this problem exists; an ideology purporting to be solution for the problem develops and spreads its influence, an event or events transpire that convert this nascent movement into Bonafede social movement; the society (and its government)is open to change for the movement to be effective (if not, then the movement might die out) and mobilization of resources takes place as the movement develops further. (ii) Explain clearly the difference between collective behavior and collective action. Collective behavior is spontaneous and epic in that they take place occasionally whereas collective actions are regularly and routinely. Collective behaviors are unstable in that they tend to be short lived and have no stable goals whereas collective actions have very stable goals and values. Collective behaviors are loosely structured whereas collective actions have set rules and procedures to be followed. Collective behaviors are unpredictable in that the direction and outcome cannot be foretold whereas collective actions are predictable in that their actions taken by a group of people to achieve a common objective Collective behavior is noninstitutionalized gathering whereas collective action is based on a shared interest. Collective behaviors are irrational in that they are guided by unreasoning, beliefs and hopes whereas collective actions are made on the basis of logical or rational discussion. Collective behaviors are emotional in that they are based on feelings and considerable personal interaction whereas collective actions are based on collective interests. Collective behaviors are non-traditional in that they are not clearly defined according to any culturally established norms and values whereas collective actions are traditionally defined in a way that convectional guidelines and formal authority follow the cultural direction. REFERENCES Smelser, N. J.) (1965). Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Place. Foweraker, J. (1995). Theorizing social movements. London: Pluto Press. Dobson C (2001), Social movements; A summary of what works, The Citizen’s Handbook: A Guide to Building Community in Vancouver. Retrieved December 2,2006. Tilly, C. (2004). Social movements, 1768-2004. Boulder, CO; Paradigm Publishers.