My+Notes+(CPR)

toc =General Notes= __We have four different generations of studies:__ The works of Ted Robert Gurr, Ivo K. Feierbrand, Rosalind L. Feierbrand, James A. Geschwender, David C. Schwartz and Denton E. Morrison fall into the first category. They followed theories of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g. modernization, recession or discrimination), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation. The second group, composed of academics such as Chalmers Johnson, Neil Smelser, Bob Jessop, Mark Hart, Edward A. Tiryakian, Mark Hagopian, followed in the footsteps of Talcott Parsons and the structural-functionalist theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions. Finally, the third group, which included writers such as Charles Tilly, Samuel P. Huntington, Peter Ammann and Arthur L. Stinchcombe followed the path of political sciences and looked at pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory. Those theories see events as outcomes of a power struggle between competing interest groups. In such a model, revolutions happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal decision making process traditional for a given political system, and simultaneously have enough resources to employ force in pursuing their goals. Also, Boix's economic/rational choice understanding. Goldstone: agency & objectives. Tilly & Tarrow's work and their focus on high stakes and extensive resources.
 * 1st generation:** The scholars of the first generation such as Gustave Le Bon, Charles A. Ellwood or Pitirim Sorokin, were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to social psychology, such as Le Bon's crowd psychology theory
 * 2nd generation:** Second generation theorists sought to develop detailed theories of why and when revolutions arise, grounded in more complex social behavior theories. They can be divided into three major approaches: psychological, sociological and political.
 * 3rd generation:** The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as Theda Skocpol, Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige and others expanding on the old Marxist class conflict approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous elites and the impact of interstate economic and military competition on domestic political change.
 * 4th generation:** analysts of both revolutions and social movements realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on contentious politics has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena.

Goldstone defines revolution as: (p.142) an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and non-institutionalized actions that undermine authorities.

Boix's perspective: focuses on the material incentives necessary for people to choose violence as a strategy to redistribute wealth. He looks at motive and opportunity (as opposed to "greed and grievance" of Collier and Hoeffler).Wealthy initiates the process by establishing either a democratic or an authoritarian regime. This is practically based on the cost of repression. If it is high - democracy. If there is an authoritative regime, it is up to the poor/lower classes to revolt or not. Again, everything is based on cost/benefit analysis. motive: inequality, opportunity: assets

Skocpol, a third generation person, and her book States and Social revolution. She claims that the natural order is at equilibrium. Four processes must obtain for a great revolution to take place 1)International pressure: most often a military conflict or international economic policy 2)State response: some measure: tax increase causing a split among elites 3) Split in the elites weakens that laws are no longer enforced etc. 4) An opposition group can put forth a viable blueprint. Skopcol looks at "Great" revolutions (China, France, China) and minor attention to "shadow" revolutions of England, Germany/Prussia, and Japan. It is more about Marxist class approach, rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicting with autonomous elites. Revolution is "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures...accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below".

Goldstone: Goldstone criticizes of third generation as there is nothing about ideologies or identities. Goldstone also claims that stability is elusive. It implies an "ongoing, successful process of reproducing social institutions and cultural expectations across time".

!!!!Cultural differences mitigate the general applicability of all these theories.

What about the relation between revolution and contentious politics? - The concept of contentious politics was developed in the 90s and 2000s by Tilly, Tarrow, McAdam. Tilly: interactions in which actors make claims on someone else's interest, in which governments appear either as targets, initiators of claims, or third parties. Tilly and Tarrow see revolutions as one of the many forms of contentious politics. Revolution is "a forcible transfer of power over a state in the course of which atleast two distincy blocs of contenders make incompatible claims to control the state, and some significant portion of the population subject to the state's jurisdiction acquiesces in the claims of each bloc (p.155)" - therefore, revolutions and other violent conflict have similar causes and effects. it is like part of the repertoires.
 * Contentious politics: using disruptive techniques in order to make a political point or to change existing government policy.

Particularly in regard to revolutions, Tilly and Tarrow outline the necessary components to a revolutionary situation: 1. Contenders advance exclusive competing claims to control of the state or some part of it. This results from mobilization, which leads to brokerage and boundary activation and results in the constitution of a revolutionary coalition. 2. Commitment of those claims by a significant segment of the citizenry. This also requires mobilization, as well as diffusion, boundary activation, and external certification. 3. Incapacity or unwillingness of rulers to suppress the revolutionary coalition. There are four components to a revolutionary outcome: 1. Defections of regime members – typically forming coalitions with the opposition 2. Acquisition of armed force by revolutionary opposition 3. Neutralization or defection of the regime’s armed force 4. Control of the state apparatus by members of the revolutionary opposition Skocpol focuses on class. different classes make different claims.

What about normal politics vs. contention politics?

Tarrow and Tilly have a strong distinction between these two concepts. Governments make rules regarding the legitimate means of contention - those within parliamentary limits are normal, accepted repertoire. anything off is contentious politics. In other words, contentious politics use disruptive techniques in order to make a political point or change existing government policy (such as demonstrations, strikes, riots, revolution etc.) Contentious politics dialectic of inclusion/exclusion - traditional politics is all based on inclusion. Contentious politics combines three major features of social life: conflict, collective action, and politics.

=Reading Citations=

Goldstone: As a criticism toward the third generation, people wanted to look at revolutions from a different perspective, expanding their focus beyond structures. 4th generation looks at what holds regimes together. 3rd generation defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of a society's state and class structures...accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below" - but this ignores several variables such as ideology, religion, coalition etc. Revolutions have a common set of elements: (i) efforts to change the political regime that draw on a competing vision of a just order, (ii) a notable degree of informal or formal mass mobilization, (iii) efforts to force change through noninstitutionalized actions. It is also possible to categorize revolutions based on types of actors or on outcomes. !!!!!! An account of revolution must focus on elite-popular alignment, processes of revolutionary mobilization and leadership, variable goals and outcomes of revolutionary actors and events. //__Causes of Revolutions:__// - International system - International military and economic competition - Direct military and diplomatic intervention - Absence of intervention pf withdrawal of support from a regime. - Relations among states, elites, and popular groups - Financial and cultural resources to carry out the tasks - Elite united - Elite-popular groups - Effectiveness of state (i.e. defeat in war, sustained population growth in excess of economic growth, and colonial regimes and personalist dictatorships)

Elites should be divided, polarized, supported by mass (formal/informal) to cause political crises which might or might not lead to a revolution.

//__Processes of Revolutions:__// - Identities are important. Structural conditions only talk about the causes - not the shape or outcome - of the conflicts. - Ideology, sum of beliefs, arguments, and judgments, is imprtant. - Ideology - inspire a broad range of followers by resonating with existing cultural guideposts. - provide a sense of inevitability and destiny about its followers' success - persuade people that the existing authorities are unjust and weak. - Leaders, gender relations, micro-level foundations (rational choice/social psychology)

- There are four motivations for individuals to join in a protest: (i)changing incentives, (ii) using community obligations, (iii) arranging contracts, (iv) using authority.

__//Outcomes://__ A revolution is over when it is over. Domestic outcomes: reduce inequality, establish democracy, provide economic prosperity (though reality is different) International system: a new regime will cause war.

CONCLUSION: a new study of regimes should focus on conditions that maintain stability rather than causes of revolutions - better prediction. --- Boix: Violent uprisings will occur in countries where inequality is high and wealth is immobile.

History: - Modernization scholars: focus is on economic inequality, social and economic development, and the status and political claims of social groups. - Ethnic nationalism and distribution of resources. - Greed vs. grievance (Collier and Hoeffler) - Weak central governments (Fearon and Laitin) - Civil war, differences (Kalyvas) - Motive and opportunity!!

Interclass conflict: when the level of inequality or wealth specificity is low, democracy regardless of cost of oppression. Intraclass conflict: Each wealthy elite wanting assets. Elites might group up with poors. --- Tilly & Tarrow:

- Contentious politics: involves interactions in which actors make claims bearing on someone else’s interests, leading to coordinated efforts on behalf of shared interests or programs, in which governments are involved as targets, initiators of claims, or third parties. Contentious politics thus brings together three familiar features of social life: contention, collective action, and politics” (p. 4).

- Contention is basically conflict, more specifically one party making a claim against another party.

- Collective action is coordinating efforts on behalf of shared interests or programs.

- Politics means having something to do with agents of governments.


 * Other important concepts are political actors, political identities, contentious performances, and repertoires.

- Events constitute episodes, episodes are the main unit of analysis. events that constitute them are main unit of observation. - Episodes bounded sequences of continuous interaction. - Mechanisms: delimited class of events that alter relations among specified sets of elements in identical or closely similar ways over a variety of situations. - Processes: regular combinations and sequences of mechanisms that produce similar transformations of those elements.

Mechanisms combine in different ways: - Brokerage: someone or something connects two previously incconected sites/ - Diffusion: spread of a form of contention, an issue, or a way of framing it from one site to another. - Coordinated action: two or more actors' engagement in mutual signaling and parallel making of claims on the same object. Additional ones: --- social appropriation, boundary activation, certification, identity shift.

Regimes: regular relations among governments, established political actors, challengers, and outside political actors. Institutions: established, organized, widely recognized routines, connections, and forms of organizations. Political opportunity structure: features of regimes and institutions.