Movements of “Crisis” and Movements of “Affluence”
Movements of “Crisis” and Movements of “Affluence”
复制标题
“危机”运动与“富裕”运动
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1982
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Harold R. Kerbo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harold R. Kerbo
为了应对旧的社会运动的社会压力或剥夺理论的经验和理论弱点，一种新的社会运动一般理论——资源动员理论——变得越来越流行。接受一种或另一种普遍观点的理论家之间最基本的分歧点之一涉及社会运动的发展和成长在多大程度上可以归因于社会压力或某种形式的剥夺的先决条件。本文首先描述这两种观点如何间接植根于不同的社会组织范式，从而导致对社会冲突和社会秩序的本质的不同假设。接下来，每个观点中包含的理论和实证问题都被证明与这些假设部分相关。最后，构建了描述“危机运动”和“富裕运动”的连续体，表明引发社会运动活动的结构条件是多种多样的。当认识到这种差异时，我们发现这两种理论在复杂的研究领域中都占有一席之地，尽管剥夺理论尤其面临着许多持续存在的问题。
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.