Mobilizing Structures and Cycles of Protest: Post-Stalinist Contention in Poland, 1954-1959

Abstract

This article considers the conditions for protest mobilization and the creation of oppositional networks under authoritarianism. Archival data identifying membership in eighteen social action groups provide the basis for social network analysis of the opposition domain. Network development is traced during three phases of anti-Stalinist mobilization. The study finds that the opening of political opportunity in a non-democratic setting stimulates both civic association and contention. It is suggested that future research be conducted to identify the relational contents of ties in order to determine when influence in a network is likely to facilitate or to inhibit collective action.

Cycles of Repression and Tactical Innovation: The Evolution of Environmental Dissidence in Communist Czechoslovakia

“…Political opportunity theory has become a dominant framework in social movement research (Goldstone and Tilly 2001; Roscigno and Danaher 2001; Almeida 2003, 2008; Meyer 2004), but analyses are often restricted to liberal democracies rather than authoritarian regimes (Osa 2001). The external variables associated with these forces have been characterized as the “consistent—but not necessarily formal, permanent, or national—signals to social or political actors which either encourage or discourage them to use their internal resources to form social movements” (Tarrow 1996:54).…”

“…The external variables associated with these forces have been characterized as the “consistent—but not necessarily formal, permanent, or national—signals to social or political actors which either encourage or discourage them to use their internal resources to form social movements” (Tarrow 1996:54). Einwohner (2003:652) summarizes the concept of political opportunity as a “restructuring of power relations that creates an ‘opening’ for protest to occur.” Importantly, however, political opportunity varies in different structural settings, and scholars have begun to differentiate between democratic and authoritarian states (e.g., Osa 2001; Almeida 2003). Osa (2001) argues that openings in the political opportunity structure in authoritarian regimes stimulate civic involvement, just as they do in liberal democracies.…”

“…Einwohner (2003:652) summarizes the concept of political opportunity as a “restructuring of power relations that creates an ‘opening’ for protest to occur.” Importantly, however, political opportunity varies in different structural settings, and scholars have begun to differentiate between democratic and authoritarian states (e.g., Osa 2001; Almeida 2003). Osa (2001) argues that openings in the political opportunity structure in authoritarian regimes stimulate civic involvement, just as they do in liberal democracies. However, the nature of these openings in each setting varies significantly.…”

“…By contextualizing openings within the broader political structure, analysts are able to clarify the link between state social control and movement dynamics. Earlier research suggested a strong correlation between state repression and movement failure (Eisinger 1973; Tilly 1978; McAdam 1982; Tarrow 1994), yet a growing body of research indicates that this relationship is complex and nonlinear, particularly in authoritarian settings (see Osa 2001; Almeida 2003, 2008). Schock (1999) found that indiscriminate state repression in Burma and the Philippines diminished the state's legitimacy and actually facilitated mobilization.…”

“…Extant research has identified the various forms of state repression used in authoritarian settings to control opposition movements (Schock 1999; Osa 2001; Almeida 2003, 2008), yet comparatively little of this scholarship has explored the complex tactical interplay between social movements and the state. In contrast to democratic settings, authoritarian regimes have greater leverage in the use of harsh forms of repression to control dissent.…”