Search

During the 1980s, homeless people formed social movement organizations and mobilized collective action events in cities across the U.S. From the vantage point of social movement theories and scholarship on homelessness, it is surprising that homeless protest was so prevalent in the 1980s. Yet we find evidence of homeless protest events across no fewer than 50 U.S. cities in the 1980--90 period. Drawing on social movement theories about the precipitants of mobilization, we examine the extent to which city-level contextual factors, and their change over time, affect variation in the frequency of homeless mobilization across 17 of these cities. Our findings reveal that a mix of factors congruent with strain and resource mobilization theories helps to account for variation in the frequency of homeless protest across U.S. cities in the 1980s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article articulates a troubling concern and elaborates a tenable resolution with respect to the conceptualization of social movements. It begins with the troubling concern, dissect it empirically and conceptually, provide a more inclusive and elastic conceptualization of movements, and conclude by considering some complexities and questions regarding this broadened conceptualization. The most obvious analytic benefit of the conceptualization of collective action and social movements is that it forces to consider more carefully social movement activity in other institutional and cultural spheres of social life. By thinking of movements as collective challenges to authority, one is less apt to continue to proceed in such a fashion, asking not only how movements in different institutional and cultural spheres may differ but also what they have in common and in what ways and how they influence each other. A second analytic benefit of broadening the scope of the conceptualization of movements along the lines suggested is that it forces one to examine even more carefully whether the conditions and mechanisms postulated to account for the emergence and operation of contentious politics apply more generally to movements challenging structures of authority in institutional domains outside the polity.

The article presents comments of the author on sociologist Joseph Gusfield. Although I do not claim expertise on the entire corpus of Gusfield's scholarships based on familiarity with, a significant segment of his work, I sense that his contribution to sociology writ large runs along at least three intersecting substantive paths: the study of social movements, the analysis of social problems, and sociological theory in as much as various sensitivities based on his experience with and understanding of symbolic interactionism have undergirded these streams of work, it is hardly surprising that Gusfield received the George Herbert Mead Award given annually by the Society for the Study of Symbolic interaction. After all, rarely does a scholar make a significant contribution to a single substantive area much less three or more and. while doing so demonstrates the utility of and extends a particular sociological perspective. This linkage between a substantive area of sociological inquiry and symbolic interactionism is clearly exhibited in Gusfield's long-standing research on and theorization about social movements and particularly a strand of social movements he conceptualized as symbolic crusades.

This article examines behavioral and psychological differences among women who used violence in four types of relationships. Nearly all of the women experienced physical abuse from their male partners. Types were compared on the extent of childhood abuse experienced, use of avoidance coping, anger, motivations for using violence, injuries, psychological symptoms, and alcohol use. Women in the Victim type (the partner used more physical violence and coercion against her than she against him) and the Abused Aggressor type (the woman used more violence and coercion against the partner than he against her) had the poorest behavioral and psychological indices. Women in Mixed-Female Coercive relationships (the woman's use as of coercion was equivalent to or greater than her partner, but the partner used as much or more violence) had the fewest difficulties. Scores for women in Mixed-Male Coercive relationships (the partner was more coercive than the woman, but the woman's use of violence was equivalent to or greater than the partner's) generally fell in between the other groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sociologie & Sociétés is the property of Presses de l'Universite de Montreal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

It is widely recognized that subcultural organization provides fertile soil for the development of social movements. There has not, however, been a systematic analysis of how different subcultures may be configured and what characteristics may encourage or inhibit mobilization. This paper takes an initial step in that direction by suggesting a typology of subcultures based on the degree of congruency of subcultural values and behaviors with the those of the dominant culture. We examine two subcultural types which are particularly relevant to social movement development: accommodative subcultures and oppositional subcultures. By drawing on interviews with activists in the former Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, we specify the conditions by which accommodative and oppositional subcultures exist and are successfully transformed into social movements. We trace the evolution from an accommodative subculture under Stalinist terror to an oppositional subculture as state repression lessened under Krushchev's liberalizations, to mass mobilization of the Estonian independence movement in the late 1980s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For over two decades, resources have been assumed to be a fundamental determinant of the course and character of social movement organizations (SMOs) and their activities. Yet surprisingly little research evaluates this taken-for-granted assumption. Using data from ethnographic fieldwork on 15 homeless SMOs in eight U.S. cities, we construct an empirically grounded typology of resources and assess the combinations of resources necessary for the viability of homeless SMOs. We then examine the sources of support for these organizations, highlighting the influence of benefactor organizations on SMO viability and tactics. Employing qualitative comparative analysis, we identify three resource configurations among the viable SMOs and find that certain resource types contributed more than others to viability. Support from benefactors also ensured viability of these organizations without moderating their tactics. We explain the implications of these findings for understanding the roles that resources and sponsorship or patronage play in the careers of SMOs and the relevance of resources, sponsorship, and organization to social movements of the poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses reasons for emergence of social movements. One of the older and more persistent ideas in the study of social movements is that movements have their origins in troublesome, unsettling social conditions, traditionally conceptualized as "strains." The strain concept is broader and more inclusive. Breakdowns used in the literature, is clearly a variant of strain, but not all strains can be subsumed under the rubric of breakdown. This article provides theoretical refinement and empirical specification for the breakdown variant of strain theory. It reconceptualizes the relationship between social breakdown and movement emergence in a fashion that is consistent with strands of cultural theory, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism, and that resonates with prospect theory and research on collective action in a diversity of settings. It argues that the key to the breakdown-movement relationship resides in the actual or threatened disruption of the "quotidian," that is, the taken for granted routines and attitudes of everyday life.

Drawing on data derived from a field study of victory celebrations, this paper suggests a dramaturgical approach to crowd behavior Existing theories of crowd behavior are either contradicted by the field data or do not adequately account for the heterogeneity of activity observed, for the interaction between the various categories of participants, or for the shifts in the behavior of the participants and the resultant change in the character of the celebrations Subsequent analysis indicates that the victory crowds are best understood from a dramaturgical standpoint. Several theoretical, conceptual, and research implications of a dramaturgical approach to crowd behavior are suggested and discussed. The paper concludes with an expanded conception of crowd behavior, one which emphasizes its spatial and temporal as well as interactional dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the relationship of propinquity (spatial proximity) to social interaction in a heterogeneous apartment, specifically, whether spatial propinquity or social homogeneity is the better explanation for resident interaction. We also examine the effects of other characteristics of the apartment design upon interaction patterns among apartment residents. Data are derived from in depth structured personal interviews with residents of the apartment complex and are analyzed with standard sociometric techniques. Findings indicate that while propinquity and other design features may precipitate initial contact and interaction, this contact will remain superficial unless it is reinforced by shared social and demographic characteristics. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of the literature about the effect of the man-made environment upon behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is common practice among the scholars, when confronted with the challenge of articulating the core premises of symbolic interactionism, they generally refer, almost in the fashion of liturgical recitation, to sociologist Herbert Blumer's conceptual distillation of the perspective into three principles: first, that people act toward things, including each other, on the basis of the meanings they have for them; second, that these meanings are derived through social interaction with others; and third, that these meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process that people use to make sense of and handle the objects that constitute their social words. Based on casual discussion with scholars who either identify themselves as symbolic interactionists or whose work falls under the canopy of interactionism, the author of this article senses that this referential practice is commonplace. Moreover, it appears to figure prominently in major textbook conceptualizations of symbolic interactionism.