Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Conceptual origins, current problems, future direction
Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Conceptual origins, current problems, future direction
复制标题
社会运动的比较视角：概念起源、当前问题、未来方向
DOI：
10.1017/cbo9780511803987.003
复制
发表时间：
1996
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Doug McAdam
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Doug McAdam
迈克尔·利普斯基（Michael Lipsky，1970：14）在 1970 年撰文，敦促政治分析家将注意力从可能适用于所有时间和所有地点的制度特征上转移开来……我们习惯于将共产主义政治制度描述为“正在经历解冻”或“正在经历紧缩过程”。美国政治体系是否经历过这样的阶段和波动，至少不应该是一个悬而未决的问题吗？同样，假设该系统将或多或少地在不同时间和不同地点对特定群体开放，这不是明智的吗？显然，利普斯基认为这两个问题的答案都是肯定的。他认为抗议活动的潮起潮落是变化的结果，这些变化使更广泛的政治体系更容易受到或更容易接受特定群体的要求。三年后，彼得·艾辛格（Peter Eisinger，1973：11）使用“政治机会结构”一词来帮助解释四十三个美国城市“骚乱行为”的变化。与利普斯基的观点一致，艾辛格（Eisinger，1973：25）发现“抗议的发生……与城市政治机会结构的性质有关”，他将其定义为“群体可能获得权力并操纵政治体系的程度”。十年之内，利普斯基和艾辛格工作的关键前提已被用作新的社会运动“政治过程”模型的中心原则。该模型的支持者（例如，Jenkins 和 Perrow，1977；McAdam，1982；Tarrow，1983；Tilly，1978）认为运动的时机和命运在很大程度上取决于当权者的制度结构和意识形态倾向的变化所提供的叛乱分子的机会。
Writing in 1970, Michael Lipsky (1970: 14) urged political analysts to direct their attention away from system characterizations presumably true for all times and all places… We are accustomed to describing communist political systems as “experiencing a thaw” or “going through a process of retrenchment.” Should it not at least be an open question as to whether the American political system experiences such stages and fluctuations? Similarly, is it not sensible to assume that the system will be more or less open to specific groups at different times and at different places? Clearly Lipsky felt the answer to both questions was yes. He assumed that the ebb and flow of protest activity was a function of changes that left the broader political system more vulnerable or receptive to the demands of particular groups. Three years later Peter Eisinger (1973: 11) used the term “structure of political opportunities” to help account for variation in “riot behavior” in forty-three American cities. Consistent with Lipsky's view, Eisinger (1973: 25) found that “the incidence of protest is … related to the nature of a city's political opportunity structure,” which he defined as “the degree to which groups are likely to be able to gain access to power and to manipulate the political system.” Within ten years the key premise informing the work of Lipsky and Eisinger had been appropriated as the central tenet in a new “political process” model of social movements. Proponents of the model (e.g., Jenkins and Perrow, 1977; McAdam, 1982; Tarrow, 1983; Tilly, 1978) saw the timing and fate of movements as largely dependent upon the opportunities afforded insurgents by the shifting institutional structure and ideological disposition of those in power.