Search results

The disciplinary insurgency that created the academic field of social movement studies distinguished dissent from crime. This dichotomy has led the field to ignore the relation between the repression of dissent and the control of "ordinary" crime. There was massive repression in the wake of the Black riots of the 1960s that did not abate when the riots abated. The acceleration of the mass incarceration of African Americans in the United States after 1980 suggests the possibility that crime control and especially the drug war have had the consequence of repressing dissent among the poor. Social movement scholars have failed to recognize these trends as repression because of the theoretical turn that built too strong a conceptual wall between crime and dissent. Revisiting this dichotomy is essential for understanding repression today. Adapted from the source document.

Part of a review symposium on a book by Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, & Charles Tilly, Dynamics of Contention (New York: Cambridge U Press, 2001). Though initially excited at the dynamic approach taken by McAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly to understand contention, the author concludes that their methodological advice is sorely lacking & fails to provide groundwork for future research. Their emphasis on the mechanisms & processes of contention within complex, multievent historical instances of contention is applauded, though they fail to offer a clear methodological guide or research agenda by which to investigate such methods & processes. Their assessment of previous social movement theory is applauded. 1 Reference. K. Hyatt Stewart

This review focuses on formal theories and models of collective action. There are many types of collective action, and they cannot all be captured with the same formal model. Four types of models are reviewed: single-actor models which treat the "group" behavior as given; models of the interdependent aggregation of individual choices into collective action; models of the collective decisions of individuals with different interests; and models of the dynamic interactions among collective actors and their opponents. All models require simplifying assumptions about some aspects of a situation so that others may be addressed. Models of the aggregation of individual choices have shown the greatest recent growth, have employed a wide variety of assumptions about individual behavior and coordination mechanisms, have identified complex interaction effects of group heterogeneity, and generally exhibit thresholds, discontinuities, and internal group differentiation. Models of dynamic interactions require further development but promise to be enriched by accumulating empirical time series data on collective events. Greater attention is urged to technical issues of formal symbolic mathematical analysis, experimental design, response surface analysis, and technical problems in the reduction and presentation of complex interactions.

A reply to David A. Snow & Robert D. Benford's comments on the authors' "What a Good Idea! Ideologies and Frames in Social Movement Research" (both, 2000) notes that the article was intended to provoke dialogue & revive theorizing about the relation between ideology & frames. Snow & Benford object to use of the noun frame, rather than the verb framing even though most research in the framing perspective does the same. The noun-verb distinction is at the core of their other criticisms, & it is argued that the noun is an interpretive frame described as a cognitive structure, while the verb describes framing processing as unique entities. The noun moves the framing process forward & does not detract from the knowledge that "all social life is emergent, negotiated, & contextual." The notion that framing as an activity is more observable than ideology is contested, & new methodologies are examined, eg, story grammar analysis, that hold promise for enhancing both the frame/framing & ideology perspectives. 4 References. J. Lindroth

Frame theory is often credited with "bringing ideas back in" social movement studies, but frames are not the only useful ideational concepts. The older, more politicized concept of ideology needs to be used in its own right & not recast as a frame. Frame theory is rooted in linguistic studies of interaction, & shows how shared assumptions & meanings shape the interpretation of events. Ideology is rooted in politics & the study of politics, & points to coherent systems of ideas that provide theories of society coupled with value commitments & normative implications for promoting or resisting social change. Ideologies can function as frames, they can embrace frames, but there is more to ideology than framing. Frame theory offers a relatively shallow conception of the transmission of political ideas as marketing & resonating, while recognition of the complexity & depth of ideology points to the social construction processes of thinking, reasoning, educating, & socializing. Social movements can only be understood by linking social psychological & political sociology concepts & traditions, not by trying to rename one group in the language of the other. 53 References. Adapted from the source document.