Movements of “Crisis” and Movements of “Affluence”

Abstract

In response to the empirical and theoretical weaknesses of the older social stress or deprivation theories of social movements, a new general theory of social movements—resource mobilization theory—has become increasingly popular. One of the most basic points of disagreement between theorists accepting one or the other general perspective involves the extent to which the development and growth of a social movement can be attributed to the preconditions of social stress or some form of deprivation. This article begins by describing how the two perspectives are indirectly rooted in differeing paradigms of social organization, which leads to divergent assumptions about the nature of social conflict and social order. Next, theoretical and empirical problems contained in each perspective are shown to be partially related to these assumptions. Finally, a continuum describing “movements of crisis” and “movements of affluence” is constructed to suggest that the structural conditions inviting social movement activity are varied. When such variance is recognized, we find there is a place for both theories in the complex field of study, though deprivation theories especially face many continuing problems.

First Nation Politics: Deprivation, Resources, and Participation in Collective Action

“…There is a general consensus in the collective action/social movements literature that deprivation does not have a strong association with mobilization (except see Useem 1998;Kerbo 1982). However, as pointed out at the outset of this paper, there are two gaps in this literature.…”

“…However, the problem with rejecting deprivation theory, at least as it relates to participation in collective action, based on the above set of studies, is that they all focus on essentially the same case: riots and ethnic conflict in U.S. cities. Like the riots and ethnic conflict in the United States, First Nation mobilization can be seen as emerging as a result of crisis and concerns over rights (this would contrast with movements of affluence such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) which are more about values) (see also Useem 1998;Kerbo 1982 on this point). Nevertheless, there is another aspect to First Nation mobilization that may make it more appropriate for examining deprivation theory.…”

Political efficacy: Enhancing the construct and its relationship to mobilization of people

“…Resource Mobilization theory may be most relevant to the mobilization of more economically privileged groups, however. It has been criticized for not applying to movements of impoverished people (Kerbo, 1982;Piven & Cloward, 1992). Piven and Cloward (1977) have advanced perhaps the most tenable theory of the rise of poor people's movements.…”

Emerging Trends in the Study of Protest and Social Movements

“…This is a generalization of much more specific critiques. The "resource mobilization" dimension of contemporary theory has been the focal point for the vast majority of these, but the inability of critics to develop an alternative further underscores the more general problem of a "theory/empirical data gap" as described by Koopmans and RuchL See Turner (1981), Kerbo (1982), Kitschelt (1991), and Goodwin and Jasper (1999) for specific critiques of mainstream social movement theory. 3.…”