Political sociology Focusing on power or political realm.

Political sociology

Focusing on power or political realm

Micro-level Politics

• - voting studies and political attitudes– Phil Converse: nature of belief systems in mass

publics and role of opinion leaders and local influentials

– Bill Gamson: how media affects attitudes and how groups (as opposed to mass media) frame issues

Organizational/Institutional Politics

• Pluralism: Dominant Theory of Decisionmaking in U.S. Government– Competing leaders

• Compromise• Logrolling: helping out• Greatest good for greatest number• Protection of minority interests

– Multiple interests• Multi-faceted: class, status, party• Issue specific• Cross-cutting

Weber's Theory of Interests

• Class: life chances: education and property• Status: life style: Goths or Metrosexuals or Hip

Hop Players/Gangsters or stay-at-home moms• Party: power

– ability to get what you want despite resistance– might be class based, status based, both or

neither– tends to be more status based when economy is

stable; class based during economic upheavals

Cross-cutting soldidaritiesrace:black

class: employers

gender: female

bfe

wfe

bme

wmewfw

bfw

bmw

• Party Systems

Organizational and Institutional

Anthony Downs: Effects of Two Party System: convergence

liberalparty

conservativeparty

Distribution of Constituent Political Attitudes

Integrated Political Theory of 1970

• Mass society: Macro Level/Institutional– accessible elites: lack of intermediate buffers

between masses and elites– available masses: lack of integration into local

associations and collectivities

• Available Masses swept into mass movements that threaten accessible elites

Kornhauser's Mass Society

• Available Non-elites: Lack of secondary, voluntary associations: mal-integration• Accessible Elites: Vulnerability to non-elite influence, direct or mediated

Availability of Non-Elites

Accessibility

of Elites

Low High

Low

Communal

Society

Totalitarian

Society

High

Pluralist

Society

Mass

Society

Collective Behavior: Organizational and Group Level Theory

• Neil Smelser, Theory of Collective Behavior,– mass movements begin with breakdown of social

control– milling and gossip conducive to generalized beliefs

• need for immediate action• sense of empowerment• utopian goals

Frustration-Aggression: Social Psychological Theory

• Ted Gurr: intolerable "want-get" gap– literature on reference groups– relative deprivation

• James Davies– "J" curve of declining rewards/expectations– intolerable gap (like Gurr)

Davies J Curve of Rising Expectation Leading to Frustration

Rewards

High

Low

TimeEarly Late

expected

obtained

intolerablewant-get gap

Political Theory in 1970• Masses were not politically informed or

rational in political attitudes or actions (Converse)

• Pluralism required that elites remain accessible but masses must be integrated into intermediate associations (Kornhauser)

• Parties tended toward moderation, but masses were susceptible to extremist appeals (Downs and Smelser)

Political Theory 1970 Predictions

• nonroutine political action increased when times were hard and social integration and social control broke down

• nonroutine action increased as routine action declined

• nonroutine participants were socially isolated and politically uninvolved/uninformed

• nonroutine action was ineffective/expressive (emotional rather than rational)

Viewed From Functional Theory

• Routine action indicated value consensus and integration

• Non-routine action was indicative of "anomie" and malintegration

• Protests, demonstrations, marches, and riots of 1950s and 1960s were dysfunctional

• society was out of balance/equilibrium, moving toward anarchy and chaos

Viewed From Conflict Perspective

• Sociologists sympathetic with movements of the Fifties and Sixties: Civil Rights, Students, Anti-War

• Challenged Functional theory• Argued that protesters were as rational as

people who studied them• Celebrated the awakening of American

democracy

Evidence Challenging Functional Theory

• Jeff Paige (Oct 1971, ASR) survey of 237 black men in Newark, NJ– riot participants had high efficacy and low trust of

government– rioters were knowledgeable but distrustful– Rioters were knowledgeable but less trustful

compared to civil rights activists

Percent Participation by Trust in Government

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

hightrust

midtrust

lowtrust

low infohigh info

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

hightrust

midtrust

lowtrust

Rioting

CivilRightsVoting

Rioting

Evidence (continued)

• Feagin and Hahn, Ghetto Revolts (1973)

– found rioters more likely to be long-term residents

– rioters well integrated into ghetto community– targets were chosen rationally—absentee

landlords rather than local residents

Bill Gamson, Strategy of Social Protest (1975)

• Historical Analysis of “Political Challengers,” 1800-1940– Roughly half were at least modestly successful in

achieving their goals– Challengers with modest (reform) goals were not

more successful– Challengers who used nonviolence were not

necessarily more successful– Organized challengers were more successful

Outcome of Resolved Challenges

New Advantages

Acceptance

Full None Total

Many Full Response38% (20)

Pre-emption11% (6)

49%(26)

None Co-optation9% (5)

Collapse42% (22)

51%(27)

Total 47% (25) 53% (28) N=53

Charles Tilly

• Shorter and Tilly, Strikes in France (1974)– Strikes more common when times were good

• Low unemployment• Economic growth

• Tilly, Mobilization to Revolution (1978)– Political violence and routine political action (e.g.,

voting) often go hand in hand

Evidence Summary

• Research accumulated in 1970s to challenge various pieces of the mass society, collective behavior, and relative deprivation theories of political influence

• Thus the integrated theory has been thoroughly critiqued and challenged both theoretically and empirically

Challenges to Pluralist Model of Decision-making

• While Mass Society, etc. was being challenged, a variety of studies challenged the pluralist model of decision-making

• These studies are generally guided by conflict theory and are might be called the “ruling elite” model of decision-making

Ruling Elite Studies

• Floyd Hunter’s study of Atlanta, Community Power Structure (1953) is the classic study of elite networks and elite domination of public policy

• Dorothy Nehil’s study of Boston indicates elite domination through networks of business and political elites

• Bachrach and Baratz (1962) classic on “nondecisions” promoted by elites

Ruling Elite Studies (continued)• Matthew Crenson, Unpolitics of Air Pollution

(1971) showed how pollution remained a “non-issue” in the most polluted cities

• Our own Robert Perrucci and Marc Pillisuk (ASR 1970) showed how inter-organizational leaders, who served on multiple corporate boards and linked these orgs– Had a reputation for local power– Had similar attitudes and interests in local politics

Pluralist Versus Ruling Elite and Functional versus Conflict Models

• Methodological distinctions– Pluralist focus on public policy decisions and

public meetings– Ruling elite focus on inter-organizational networks

and reputation for power/influence

Debate (continued)• Theoretical arguments

– Liberals argue that poor people or non-elites have to fight their way into the polity

– Elites promote non-decisions/status quo– Political challenges predicted by

• Interests• Organization• opportunity

– Political challenges produce social change

Tilly’s Mobilization Model

Organization Interest

Mobilization

Repression/Facilitation

PowerOpportunity/Threat

CollectiveAction

Source: Tilly (1978), p. 56

Tilly’s (1978) Interests

• Marxist: use class as “predictors of the interests people will pursue in the long run” (p. 61); these are objective class interests

• Subjective/expressed interests: Tilly uses these to predict what people will do in the short run

• Marx roots interests in the relations and modes of production and the relations between and within classes—the relations of life and work

• Weber distinguishes class, status, and party interests, which may or may not predict collective action.

Tilly’s (1978, p. 63) Organization in Terms of Categories and Networks

Catness

Netness

high

low

highlow

Casual Crowd Friendship Networks

All BraziliansPrinters Union

Local

organization

Tilly (1978, p. 112) on Government Response to Challengers

SmallFacilitation

Scale of TolerationClaim

Repression

Large

Weak Strong Power of Group

Tilly’s Model of Collective Action Predicted by Power, Mobilization, and Opportunity/Threat

∞

0

-1

CollectiveGoodsObtained

Resources ExpendedLow High

opportunity

break even

threat

mobilization

Power, Mobilization, and Opportunity/Threat: Tilly (1978)

• Power results from relations with others, including governments. Facilitation or repression are the extreme reactions to collective action, decreasing or increasing the cost/benefits of collective action. Graphically, power is represented by the shape of the S curve that describes the return on collective actions (collective goods obtained/resources expanded). The steeper the curve the greater the power.

• Mobilization limits the potential return, however, since the resources expended cannot exceed mobilization (mobilization is defined as resources controlled by constituents * probability that these will be committed).

• Opportunity is "the extent to which other actors, including governments, are vulnerable to new claims which would, if successful, enhance the contender's realization of its interests." (p. 133)

• Threat is "the extent to which other groups are threatening to make claims which would, if successful, reduce the challenger's realization of its interests." (p.133)

Resource Mobilization Theory

• Resource Mobilization Theory: Gamson, Tilly, McCarthy & Zald– is now the dominant perspective on social

movements and social change– it has been challenged by conservatives and

radicals and has been tweaked by friendly critics• McAdam: political processs theory• Tarrow: political opportunities

Challenges to Resource Mobilization Theory

• State centered theory: Skocpol, Evans– Bringing the State Back In– need to focus on ability of governments

• to effect policy innovations• to manage constituent discontent• to accommodate other governments

New Social Movement theory

Focus on difference between labor movement• rational• materialist• self-interested

And new social movements (e.g., anti-nuclear)• community building versus policy• status (versus class)• more expressive

Social Movement Theory Today

• Some cynics suggest return to 1950s• But new theories are different from 1970• Tilly's model of interests, organization and

opportunity is an interactive contingency model of political influence

• Skocpol and Goldstone and other state-centered folks offer similar model of state capacity

State-Centered Model

• Skocpol, et al. view state in world system– relations with other states affect capacity

• help from friends• problems with enemies

– state has similar relations with constituents• possibilities for support• threat of opposition

stateotherstates

constituents

Political Process Model

• Sid Tarrow and Doug McAdam developed this model to accommodate both– Constituents and– The State

• Tarrow (1994): waves of political protest occur in response to political opportunities– “increased access, influential allies, divided elites,

and unstable alliances” (pp. 86-89)

Political Process (continued)

• Tarrow argues that– Organized interests

• Seize opportunities• To gain new advantages

– New interests emerge• take advantage of already be-leaguered authorities• Until elites are able to re-establish alliances, close

ranks, and close off political opportunities

Political Process (continued)

• Tarrow explains: at the end of a wave/cycle– Challengers and elites attempt to

• Consolidate gains• Minimize losses

– What remains is the “residual of reform” (p. 186)

Political Process (conclusion)

• Political process theory is, essentially– A liberal, interactive, contingency model– That focuses on the relations between

governments and their challengers– This is a friendly amendment to Resource

Mobilization theory: the dominant perspective in political sociology

– It is being challenged by conservatives and radicals– Piven and Cloward are among the radicals

Poor People’s Movements

• Piven and Cloward argue that “institutional conditions … create and limit the opportunities for mass struggle”

• Furthermore, “not formal organizations but mass defiance … won in the 1930s and 1960s”

• “organizations that were developed … tended to blunt the militancy” (p. xv)

Poor People’s Movements (cont.)

• “formal organizations collapsed as the movements subsided” (p. xvi)

• “John L. Lewis and the Congress of Industrial Organizations did not create the strike movement of the industrial workers;

• it was the industrial workers who created the CIO” (p. 153)

Piven and Cloward vs. Resource Mobilization theory

• Piven and Cloward argue against the idea that organizations produce collective action or political protest

• They argue that collective action or protest produces the organizations

Politicalprotest

Politicalorganization

Questions

• Where do rights come from?– government?– political challengers?

• Do rights matter?

Questions (continued)

• Consider rights movements– Bill of Rights– Right to unemployment compensation– Right to collective bargaining– Civil rights– Welfare rights

Where Did These Rights Come From?

• All of these rights were promoted by political challengers– Anti-federalists– Unemployed workers– Workers– Blacks– Welfare recipients

Rights (continued)

• All of these rights were granted by the state– Federalist concessions: Bill of Rights– FDR/Wagner: Wagner Act– JFK/LBJ

• So rights are both demanded and granted

Piven and Cloward (and Hogan)

• Political Opportunities, interests, and organization are all rooted in institutional structure

• Crises in republican capitalism– Depression of 1930s– Destruction of Southern cotton economy– Rise of post-industrial or postmodern economy