What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics
Dynamics of Contention
In recent decades the study of social movements, revolution, democratization and other non-routine politics has flourished. And yet research on the topic remains highly fragmented, reflecting the influence of at least three traditional divisions. The first of these reflects the view that various forms of contention are distinct and should be studied independent of others. Separate literatures have developed around the study of social movements, revolutions and industrial conflict. A second approach to the study of political contention denies the possibility of general theory in deference to a grounding in the temporal and spatial particulars of any given episode of contention. The study of contentious politics are left to 'area specialists' and/or historians with a thorough knowledge of the time and place in question. Finally, overlaid on these two divisions are stylized theoretical traditions - structuralist, culturalist, and rationalist - that have developed largely in isolation from one another. This book was first published in 2001.
410 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2001
14 people are currently reading
142 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 21, 2013
A welcome theoretical rebound from decades of ism-ism, but one which still suffers from some problems. Like any good, wanna-be iconoclastic works DoC can't quite break away from what it is mired in. The authors can hardly be faulted for that, historiographical and social science tropes and theoretical crap-shoots are such a part of academia today that it is difficult to not address them. Again, I insist that we start afresh with a Cartesian sort of sloughing off of everything and start fresh, but, yeah, sure, whatever.
Although insisting that they are moving away from static approaches to theorizing collective action and contention, the authors have a habit of pretending to be outfitting their approach with hitherto unexplored elements: brokerage is just alliance-forming, nothing new. Threat and opportunism can hardly be divorced from any study of collective action. Thus, much of what they are suggesting here is simple rehash.
Also, there is much noise made from the get-go about NOT formulating a broad agenda of theoretical patterning that is universally applicable, then the trio turn around and unabashedly do that. It's a given that this is an attractive venue to take when making comparative history, so it is eminently forgivable, but it is misleading to the reader when, seeking a theory away from theory, one simply runs into a reformulation of old social science tropes.
Nitpicking aside, there is much of value here, though perhaps not immediately clear. Another flaw, the book's length, repetitive nature, and what I found to be stultifying jargon, could be easily remedied by miniaturizing the thing down and heavily editing the introductory sections. The comparative case-study sections are fine, useful, but the authors tend to get happy with their revolutionary approach and get lost by the wayside as the book veers away from them.
So, a nice, fresh critical approach to how these sorts of things are studied but not without its problems.
Although insisting that they are moving away from static approaches to theorizing collective action and contention, the authors have a habit of pretending to be outfitting their approach with hitherto unexplored elements: brokerage is just alliance-forming, nothing new. Threat and opportunism can hardly be divorced from any study of collective action. Thus, much of what they are suggesting here is simple rehash.
Also, there is much noise made from the get-go about NOT formulating a broad agenda of theoretical patterning that is universally applicable, then the trio turn around and unabashedly do that. It's a given that this is an attractive venue to take when making comparative history, so it is eminently forgivable, but it is misleading to the reader when, seeking a theory away from theory, one simply runs into a reformulation of old social science tropes.
Nitpicking aside, there is much of value here, though perhaps not immediately clear. Another flaw, the book's length, repetitive nature, and what I found to be stultifying jargon, could be easily remedied by miniaturizing the thing down and heavily editing the introductory sections. The comparative case-study sections are fine, useful, but the authors tend to get happy with their revolutionary approach and get lost by the wayside as the book veers away from them.
So, a nice, fresh critical approach to how these sorts of things are studied but not without its problems.
September 28, 2023
my boygenius
March 14, 2016
Kavramlaştırmalar genel olarak iyi ama bazı yerlerde çok karmaşık bir dil kullanmışlar. Örnek olaylar faydalıydı. Ayrıca bkz: Sosyal bilimlerde ABD ekolü ve her şeyi şemalara, şekillere dökme merakı. :) Yeni Toplumsal Hareketleri açıklamak için kurdukları şemayı nereye koysan iş görür. Her olaya uyarlarsın. Ama açıklayıcılığı ne derece güçlü olur bilemedim. Her şeyi açıklayan ama aslında hiçbir şeyi derinlemesine açıklayamayacak bir yöntem kurmuşlar. Çünkü siyaset ve siyasal alan tanımları fazlaca geniş. Ne toplumsal, ne ekonomik ilişki biçimlerine doğru düzgün yer kalmıyor. Devleti muhatap alan her türlü talep kendiliğinden siyasal bir talep midir gerçekten? Bir de öznesi, nicel ya da nitel kapasitesi fark etmeksizin her türlü "yeni" talep siyasal çekişme yaratmak için yeterli midir?
March 25, 2014
Toplumsal hareketlerin nasıl bileşenlere sahip olduğuna dair 'resource mobilization' teorisinin sosyal bilimlerdeki son gelismelerle güncellenmiş bir versiyonu. Bazı tespitler ve kavramlaştırmalar iyi, ama yazarlar lafı çok uzatıyor. Çok basit anlatılabilecek mekanizma, süreç ve episod kavramları anlamsız biçimde karmaşıklaştırılmış, gereksiz akademizme gidilmiş. Zengin kaynakçası faydalı.
Want to read
November 8, 2007this book is putting me to sleep - help! is there really anything in here that i need to know?
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews