--Apple-Mail-12--796681052
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed
Annual Review of Political Science
June 1998, Vol. 1, pp. 401-424
(doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.401)
CONTENDING THEORIES OF CONTENTIOUS POLITICS AND THE STRUCTURE-ACTION=20
PROBLEM OF SOCIAL ORDER
Mark I. Lichbach
Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, Boulder,=20
Colorado 80309-0333; e-mail: lichbach@???
Sections:=A0
ABSTRACT
Section:
Abstract=A0 To understand protest in America, one must understand=20
protest and one must understand America. More generally, the study of=20
resistance against authority may adopt two foci: authority (structure)=20=
and resistance (action). The leading practitioners of the structuralist=20=
approach to contentious politicsMcAdam, Tarrow, and Tillyhave jointly=20
systematized their ideas. This synthesis, which I call Synthetic=20
Political Opportunity Theory (SPOT), exerts domination and hegemony=20
over the field. Its upstart rational action challenger is the=20
Collective Action Research Program (CARP). I outline the basic=20
presuppositions of SPOT and CARP and describe their different=20
approaches to the structure-action problem of constituting social=20
order. I then explore the potential of a CARP-SPOT consortium. I=20
conclude that synergisms of the perspectives are possible but that=20
trade-offs are inevitable: strong on action, weak on structure and vice=20=
versa; strong on resistance, weak on authority and vice versa; and=20
strong on protest, weak on America and vice versa. Hence, we need=20
creative confrontations, which should include well-defined combinations=20=
rather than grand syntheses, of rationalist and structuralist=20
approaches to contentious politics.
--Apple-Mail-12--796681052
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
charset=ISO-8859-1
<=
bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><color><param>0000,6666,9999</param><=
bigger>Annual
Review of Political Science</bigger></color><bigger>
=
</bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><smaller>June=
1998, Vol. 1, pp. 401-424
(doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.401)
<x-tad-bigger>=20
=
</x-tad-bigger></smaller></fontfamily><bold><fontfamily><param>Times</para=
m><x-tad-bigger>CONTENDING
THEORIES OF CONTENTIOUS POLITICS AND THE STRUCTURE-ACTION PROBLEM OF
SOCIAL
=
ORDER</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><b=
igger>=20
<bold>Mark I. Lichbach=20
</bold>Department of Political Science, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0333; e-mail:
<color><param>A5A5,2A2A,2A2A</param>lichbach@???</color>=20=
Sections:</bigger><x-tad-smaller>=A0
=
</x-tad-smaller></fontfamily><bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger=
><bigger>ABSTRACT</bigger></bigger><x-tad-smaller>=20
=
</x-tad-smaller></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigge=
r>Section:</bigger><x-tad-smaller>=20
</x-tad-smaller><color><param>A5A5,2A2A,2A2A</param><x-tad-smaller> =
</x-tad-smaller></color><x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller><bold><smaller><x-tad-smaller>
=
Abstract=A0</x-tad-smaller></smaller></bold></fontfamily><bold><fontfamily=
><param>Times</param><bigger> =
</bigger></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger>To
understand protest in America, one must understand protest and one
must understand America. More generally, the study of resistance
against authority may adopt two foci: authority (structure) and
resistance (action). The leading practitioners of the structuralist
approach to contentious politicsMcAdam, Tarrow, and Tillyhave jointly
systematized their ideas. This synthesis, which I call Synthetic
Political Opportunity Theory (SPOT), exerts domination and hegemony
over the field. Its upstart rational action challenger is the
Collective Action Research Program (CARP). I outline the basic
presuppositions of SPOT and CARP and describe their different
approaches to the structure-action problem of constituting social
order. I then explore the potential of a CARP-SPOT consortium. I
conclude that synergisms of the perspectives are possible but that
trade-offs are inevitable: strong on action, weak on structure and
vice versa; strong on resistance, weak on authority and vice versa;
and strong on protest, weak on America and vice versa. Hence, we need
creative confrontations, which should include well-defined
combinations rather than grand syntheses, of rationalist and
structuralist approaches to contentious politics.
</bigger><x-tad-smaller>
</x-tad-smaller></fontfamily>=
--Apple-Mail-12--796681052--
