Suchergebnisse

A theoretical analysis of what basically motivates people to participate in politics. For the majority, pol'al participation is almost completely instrumental. They get pol'ly active to guarantee their basic security in such things as food, clothing, shelter, health, & physical safety from intra- & international violence or to gain a sense of belonging to some group other than family, church, trade union, etc. They pursue inherently enjoyable activities largely outside politics. For the small pol'ly active minority, Lasswell has argued that the basic goal is power, deference, or the displacement of private aggressions on public objects. Businessmen also need power; movie actresses, deference; Marx displaced his private aggressions on public objects. Among presidents of the US, Harding had little evident desire for power, or John Q. Adams for deference; Jefferson was not remarkable for his private aggressions. The only common motivation for the pol'ly active is their inherent & profound enjoyment of state-craft-however strong their other motivations may be. AA-IPSA.

A sample study was made in 1954 of 98 Japanese who were part of the pop of 10,000 in an internment camp in which riots had occurred in 1942. Of those interviewed, 26 reported having attended one or more of the demonstrations. The size of the sample is small & the results are presented with diffidence, though it is considered that they present reasonably accurate findings in an unusually difficult area of res. The precipitate cause of the disturbances was resentment at the jailing of people accused of assaulting Japanese collaborators with the camp admin. The analysis indicates that rioters differ from nonrioters mainly in their marginality between the 2 cultures of America & Japan: though, statistically, more often native American than non-rioters, they were nevertheless more selfconsciously Japanese. Other important characteristics of rioters as compared with non-rioters were their tendency to be socially active (an aspect of their search for stronger cultural ties), their relative lack of an econ stake in society, their relative youth & their relative freedom from family ties. Compared with the non-rioters, the rioters were a restless, dissatisfied category of people, reacting more strongly to the conditions of society, to which both groups alike were subject. The analysis suggests that, though it may be supported by a majority of the society, rebellion is the work of a minority whose individual circumstances make it possible for them not to tolerate the intolerable. IPSA.