Suchergebnisse

Social movements have an elusive power but one that is altogether real. From the French and American revolutions to the Arab Spring, and to ethnic and terrorist movements of today, contentious politics exercises a fleeting but powerful influence on politics, society and international relations. Covering key episodes up to the attack on the US Capitol in January 2021, leading scholar of politics and government Sidney Tarrow uses a number of recent, historical and comparative case studies to introduce his theory of social movements and political parties. The fourth edition of this classic study emphasizes the symbiotic relations between social movements and parties by focusing attention on the growing role of populism in Europe, Latin America, and the US; analyzes the role of social media as a mobilizing and aggregating force for social movements; highlights the relations between structural changes in the economy and new forms of contention; draws on new material on movements in the Global South and the relations between movements and democracy.

"Social movements have an elusive power but one that is altogether real. From the French and American revolutions to the post-Soviet, ethnic, and terrorist movements of today, contentious politics exercises a fleeting but powerful influence on politics, society, and international relations. This study surveys the modern history of the modern social movements in the West and their diffusion to the global South through war, colonialism, and diffusion, and it puts forward a theory to explain its cyclical surges and declines. It offers an interpretation of the power of movements that emphasizes effects on the lives of militants, policy reforms, political institutions, and cultural change. The book focuses on the rise and fall of social movements as part of contentious politics in general and as the outcome of changes in political opportunities and constraints, state strategy, the new media of communication, and transnational diffusion"--

Movements and parties have given rise to two largely separates specialties in the social sciences. This Element is an effort to link the two literatures, using evidence from American political development. It identifies five relational mechanisms governing movement/party relations: two of them short term, two intermediate term, and one long-term. It closes with a reflection on the role of movement/party relations in democratization and for democratic resilience.

How do social movements intersect with the agendas of mainstream political parties? When they are integrated with parties, are they coopted? Or are they more radically transformative? Examining major episodes of contention in American politics - from the Civil War era to the women's rights and civil rights movements to the Tea Party and Trumpism today - Sidney Tarrow tackles these questions and provides a new account of how the interactions between movements and parties have been transformed over the course of American history. He shows that the relationships between movements and parties have been central to American democratization - at times expanding it and at times threatening its future. Today, movement politics have become more widespread as the parties have become weaker. The future of American democracy hangs in the balance.

A State That Was Not So WeakA Contentious Society; Contention and Convention; State Building and Contentious Politics; Religion and Contention in America; Competing for Religious Consumers; Movements and American Institutions; Multilevel Movements; Conclusions; 4: The French Revolution, War, and State Building; Two Determinisms and a Synthesis; The Republican/Marxist Tradition; The Intellectual/Cultural Alternative; The Tillian Synthesis; Contention in Revolution; Mechanisms of Revolution; Building a State amid War and Contention: France, 1789-1794; State Building; War Making.

Political scientists are becoming more self-conscious about how they connect quantitative and qualitative data in social science and about the role of systematic country studies in comparative research. As the most striking example of both practices in recent years, Robert Putnam and his collaborators' Making Democracy Work deserves more serious criticism than it has received. While Putnam's original project aimed at a precise goal - studying how a new administrative reform is institutionalized - his ultimate project aimed at nothing less than examining how differently democracy works in different sociopolitical contexts, operationalized cross-sectionally in southern and northern Italy. The sources of these differences he found in the two regions' histories, which led him to employ the quantitative interregional data he had collected for one purpose to support a model of historical development of North and South. This historical reconstruction rests largely on qualitative data; but it also rests on a set of comparative inferences about individual values and community cohesiveness in the two regions that is of questionable historical validity and innocent of structural grounding. This article applauds Putnam's joining qualitative and quantitative data but attacks his reconstruction of Italian history to fit his model of social capital. (American Political Science Review / FUB)

The poverty of philosophy, for Marx, was its formalism. The social sciences, in contrast, are blessed with the ability to adjust theory to experience. In our study of Marxist movements, however, we lack precisely the marxian flexibility we need to overcome a patrimony of ideology, misinformation and rigidity. Writers like Duverger and Selznick, for example, talk about "devotee parties" and "organizational weapons" without considering that their terminology may in some cases be misleading.The devotee party, writes Duverger, "represents a change from the conception of the party as a class; it is the party conceived as the elite." Its members pledge their "whole human being" to the party while its structure focuses upon "unceasing propaganda and agitation," to the detriment of parliamentary activity. Duverger leaves no doubt that his archetype of the devotee party is the Communist Party. What he never asks, however, is whether a Communist Party may be anything but a devotee party.With a similar focus, Philip Selznick describes "the combat party," whose peculiar property is its "competence to turn members of a voluntary association into disciplined and deployable political agents," and its "adoption of subversion" and "penetration and manipulation of institutional targets." While the model is most relevant in societies in which Communist doctrine is remote and unappealing to the population, Selznick, like Duverger, holds that it "provides a fair interpretation of the Communist vanguard or combat party, wherever it is found."