Search

This article presents additional thoughts about collective behavior with reference to two papers on the Kent State University incident which papers were written as applications of theory of collective behavior. The author developed this theory to establish general analytic relations among a set of variables that he had discovered to be important in the genesis of hundreds of episodes of collective behavior. One of the most original and strongest aspects of the theory was its emphasis on the behavior of agents of social control as determinants of the timing, content, direction, and outcomes of episodes of collective behavior. The author stressed social-structural aspects, but he underplayed the importance of psychological mechanisms in the dynamics of episodes of collective behavior. In this article, the author developed a few new thoughts about the psychological and organizational characteristics of collective behavior in reading the two papers. These thoughts are developed under three headings, strategies to fix blame and assign illegitimacy in episodes of conflict; the relations among different agents of social control as these influence the development of an episode; and shifts in the definition of the situation, and the implication of these shifts for the application of the value-added model.

This paper examines the causal and explanatory role assigned to intrapersonal (or P-) variables in the recent sociological literature on collective behavior. In Part I emphasis is on the use—or nonuse—of P-variables as factors mediating between collective behavior episodes and their antecedent social and situational determinants. It is suggested that P-variables have been (1) excluded on methodological grounds in favor of more directly observable and/or manipulable behavior, (2) analyzed as dependent variables, defined by and contingent on antecedent social and situational considerations, or (3) introduced as independent variables and therefore significantly figuring in any explanatory account of collective behavior. Part II deals with the conceptually deeper issue concerning the terminology and metaphors employed in the literature regarding collective behavior and its causal antecedents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents authors personal thoughts on the pursuit of sociological problems. The author intends to retrace his steps along one path of his intellectual career--the path that links two books, titled, "Social Change in the Industrial Revolution," and "Theory of Collective Behavior," and a number of recent articles and papers on sociological theory and psychological theory. The main emphasis in the article was on the need for a determinate synthesis of the several classes of variables that are essential for the explanation of collective behavior such as cultural, social, psychological, ecological and other variables. In attempting to sort out the major influences on his choice of sociological problems, he resorts to a device that he find congenial and helpful: to arrange these influences in a series extending from very general, predisposing influences which have steered his intellectual interests to the very specific, immediate influences that have determined a particular strategy of analysis in working on a sociological problem.

This paper presents a model of the mobilization of people into movements that is compatible with a resource mobilization perspective on social movement organizations as the unit of analysis, but substitutes a cognitive social psychology based on attribution theory and the sociology of knowledge for the incentive model typically used in this perspective. We focus on the problem, neglected by resource mobilization theorists, of explaining the translation of objective social relationships into subjectively experienced, collectively defined grievances. On a macro level, our model gives independent causal weight to ideology without discounting the role that resources also play in defining group goals. On a social psychological level, we identify three distinct organizational strategies—conversion, coalition, and direct action—for mobilizing persons as participants and examine some cognitive and organizational consequences of each strategy. We conclude that incorporation of a more adequate social psychology of individual participation is not only compatible with the organizational focus and emphasis on rationality of the resource mobilization perspective, but can provide important insights into problems both social movement theorists and social movement organizers see as significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tamotsu Shibutani is a contemporary proponent of the Chicago School of pragmatic sociology who has devoted his academic efforts to using the Chicago School of pragmatism to analyze problems of contemporary social life and to refine the theoretical tools available to the discipline of sociology. He has evaluated such topics as the Japanese relocation centers, the racial construction of rumor, demoralization in Army life, the dynamics of ethnic stratification, and the resolution of ethnic tension. Shibutani's books on social psychology and general sociology synthesize micro and macro variables, with careful attention to both agency and social control. His work is free of metaphysical puzzles and is true to the scientific method, clearly reflecting the essence of the Chicago School of pragmatic sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, social psychological theories of social movements such as relative deprivation (RD) have come under heavy censure. An examination of the theoretical literature on RD indicates that many of the critics' remarks seem to be predicated on an inadequate and superficial interpretation of RD. A detailed examination of many of the studies purporting to operationalize RD reveals, however, that many of the criticisms retain their pertinence when evaluating the empirical work. At this point it seems lead to a more accurate appraisal of RD are recommended, since both social psychological and mobilization theories are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of collective behavior. Ghetto dwellers have much to resent about the way the outside world treats them: poor jobs, unemployment, unfair practices on the part of many employers, high rents for unsatisfactory housing, inadequate schools and health and sometimes brutal police work, the poor performance and sharp practices of many businesses aiming at ghetto customers, as well as a host of major and minor expressions of prejudice and discrimination which may confront a member of the black minority as he goes about his everyday social traffic in American society. Although such circumstances do not hit every member of the community with equal force, they provide each ghetto dweller with some basis for discontent, and probably they all play some role in the accumulation of grievances which may finally result in a rising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines Smelser's value-added theory of collective behavior. According to Smelser, six determinants are necessary for the development of a social movement: structural conduciveness, structural strain, generalized beliefs, precipitating factors, mobilization of participants, and social control. As a test of this analytic framework, two Melanesian cargo cult movements and the general history of these movements are investigated. On the basis of a historical and comparative analysis that relies upon both primary and secondary sources, the six factors outlined in the theory are shown to be present. The relevance of these findings for the explanation of social movements is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the concept of responsibility in sociology. Responsibility is a concept for which there are many definitions, meanings, and understandings. It has legal, moral, and functional ramifications and numerous connotations which confuse as well as clarify. In one sense, it refers to responsibility as involving the idea of causation. In another, it refers to accountability. Responsibility helps in distinguishing between causation, subjection to punishment and obligation. People are concerned with accountability when it produces a punitive response, in which the collective body or society, through its legal and political institutions, is given a right to impose pain upon one or more individuals. Whatever may be the rationale that justifies the imposition of pain upon another, sociology and criminal law have been concerned with issues of diminished responsibility and mitigation. Crime is defensible as a good only if it is limited, contained and neither in the quantity nor in the enormity of the acts does it bring suffering beyond the benefits entailed.

Data from the risky shift literature are brought to bear on collective behavior. The author suggests that the extreme behavior common in collective behavior is parallel to the shift to risk in small groups decision making, and that both phenomena can be conceptualized as group-induced shifts to an extreme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article applies the theoretical model of collective behavior developed by Neil J. Smelser to data derived from diverse sources dealing with events at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. In particular, it focuses on a period of two and a half hours on May 4, 1970, as it looks at events leading to and surrounding the killing of four undergraduate students and the wounding of nine other students. Smelser's system of thought is based on a set of concepts and propositions which can be used to order all variations in collective behavior. The five determinants of collective behavior are structural conduciveness, structural strain, growth of a generalized hostile belief, mobilization of participants for action and operation of social control. Smelser defines hostile outbursts as mobilization for action under a hostile belief. The analysis of the spread of a hostile outburst falls into two categories. Smelser says that any hostile outburst can be looked at as having a real and derived phase. The real or initial phase results from the build-up on conditions prior to the beginning of the outburst. In the derived phase, however, the hostility may become unrelated to conditions giving rise to the initial outburst.