Class Notes (808,126)
Canada (493,084)
SOCI 386 (9)

jan 21st.docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Sociology (Arts)
SOCI 386
Marcos Ancelovici

Jan 21 st Free Rider Problem- Olson Rational Choice perspective - Assumes people have a clear and stable ranking of preferences and that they know what they want - Problem begins with the goal of SMs- they generally aim at collective goods like democracy or the environment, so that everyone gets the benefits regardless of whether they participate - Since the benefits do not depend on your individual actions, there is no incentive (almost a disincentive) to participate - Olson claims the nature of SMs hinders rational participation in SMs (SMs as inherently irrational) - As the group gets bigger, there is less and less incentive to participate (what about the threshold dynamic?) - Olson presents a puzzle- what fosters participation? - He says that small groups, through peer pressure and the feeling of dependence/feeling that your participation has genuine influence on the collective, as well as selective incentives will foster participation (formal organizations using material incentives to motivate people and override free rider logic) Critique of Olson - What is rationality, really? Is it really a cost/benefit analysis? We often don’t know what the costs and benefits are going to be before we act so how would rationality be assessed then? - What about non-material incentives? - Even small group conditions with selective incentives sometimes fail to mobilize people - Neglects structuring effect of institutions, social networks, and the professionalization of organizations (sometimes people become involved in SMs just for a job) - Assumes movements are inherently irrational in their mass sense (Olson is a dick)- dismisses collective action so he doesn’t have to explain it (Olson is also lazy) - During a decade in which SMs were widespread, Olson tried to explain why they were unlikely to occur (what is even the point of you) Meyer/Tarrow would claim that SMs have become normalized and that they are no longer subversive In the late 90s, there is a shift in how police deal with protestors, from a strategy of negotiated management to strategic incapacitation (arresting a few people to neutralize the most radical before they can influence others and cause significant damage- figure out who is the most radical by infiltrating SM groups) Alternative explanations to Olson’s (instrumental rationality) Collective Behaviour Theories - Durkheim, Park, and Blumer - Focus on strains- when there is a wave of social disruption which affects the ability of society to integrate people, there will be a breakdown of society (social structures etc.) which puts strain on individuals - To compensate for the breakdown of the system, people engage in collective action to reconstruct society in ways which foster coordination and social integration Mass Society Theory - A variant of the above - Social changes uproot people from their support environment (i.e. urbanization moves people from a highly integrated society to a society with low integration, which causes people to feel lonely and alienated, which leads to extreme behaviour) - Theory emerged as a way to explain the rise of facism and the question of maintaining social order Relative Deprivation Theory - Tocqueville, Smelser, GURR - Believe it is not a problem of integration, but of expectations (gap between expectations and actual achievements) - Gap can manifest itself as: 1) expectations stable, but satisfaction with the expectations declines (i.e. blue collar workers want to buy houses and have families, unemployment causes them to become anti-immigration); 2) expectations are raised but nothing happens ; 3) expectations and conditions rise, then conditions start to decline (i.e. women’s movements where expectations are raised after a period of immense change, but income inequality and rape culture still persist) - So, deprivation depends on your reference group (i.e. white women’s reference group is white men- better off than Latin American women, but that is not their reference group so they are not satisfied with 70 cents to every white man’s dollar) - Feeling of deprivation+ a precipitating factor+ leadership= collective action Critiques - Relative deprivation is always present in society and fails to mobilize people most of the time- if this theory were true, SMs would be happening everywhere all the time - Even when SMs occur, it doesn’t explain why some within the deprived group mobilize while others don’t - While strain may be a necessary condition for mobilization, it is not sufficient - Assumes marginalized groups just want what others have (what about SMs that want to change the entire system, not just redistribute stuff? i.e. feminists who want equal pay and feminists who urge for a restructuring of society to dismantle the global patriarchy) - Has a narrow conception of grievances- strain is not always necessary for a SM to occur - Depicts collective action and SMs as psychological rather than political, portrays movements as anarchic rather than organized (overemphasizes spontaneity) - Doesn’t take into account the historical context/reasons why the movement takes place - Deterministic/functionalist assumptions (assumes effect of the moveme
More Less

Related notes for SOCI 386

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.