Political opportunity theory, sometimes also known as the political process theory or political opportunity structure, is a theory of social movements grounded in political sociology. It argues that social movements are vastly affected by outside political opportunities.
Contents |
Theory
Political process theory argues that there are three vital components for movement formation: insurgent consciousness, organizational strength, and political opportunities. Insurgent consciousness refers back to the ideas of deprivation and grievances. The idea is that certain members of society feel like they are being mistreated or that somehow the system is unjust. The insurgent consciousness is the collective sense of injustice that movement members (or potential movement members) feel and serves as the motivation for movement organization. Organizational strength falls inline with resource mobilization theory, arguing that in order for a social movement to organize it must have strong leadership and sufficient resources. Political opportunity refers to the receptivity or vulnerability of the existing political system to challenge. This vulnerability can be the result of any of the following (or a combination thereof):
- growth of political pluralism
- decline in effectiveness of repression
- elite disunity; the leading factions are internally fragmented
- a broadening of access to institutional participation in political processes
- support of organized opposition by elites
Political opportunity theory argues that the actions of the activists are dependent on a broader context (in other words, on the existence - or lack of - of a specific political opportunity).[1] There are various definitions of political opportunity, but Meyer (2004) stresses that of Tarrow (1989): "consistent—but not necessarily formal or permanent—dimensions of the political struggle that encourage people to engage in contentious politics".[2] Compared to related resource mobilization theorists, writers on political opportunity theory stress mobilization of resources external to the movement.[2] Movement activists do not chose their goals at random, its the political contexts which stresses certain grievances, and around those, movements organize.[1] This argument ties into the structure and agency debate: actions of activists (agents) can only be understood when seen in the broader context of political opportunities (structure).[1]
The term structure has often been used to characterize political opportunities.[2] However, Tarrow - who has used this term in his earlier publications - now argues it is misleading, as most opportunities need to be perceived, and are situational, not structural.[2] A political opportunity structure has been defined as the circumstances surrounding a political landscape.[3] Political opportunity structures are fluid and can alter in days or decades. Factors such as demographics, social and economic issues within a population all count to creating a specific "structure" which actors within the landscape can find themselves gaining or benefiting from.
Meyer (2004) credits Eisinger (1973) with first use of the political opportunity theory framed in such a way (traces of which, of course, go further back).[1] Eisinger asked why in 1960s some places in USA witnessed more riots about race and poverty then others; and notes that cities without visible openings for participation of repressed or discouraged dissident made riots more likely. Thus the lack of openings for legal airing of grievances was the political opportunity which led to organization and mobilization of movements expressing their grievances by rioting.[4]
Meyer (2004) in his overview of political opportunity theory noted that this broader context can affect:
- "mobilizing",
- "advancing particular claims rather than others",
- "cultivating some alliances rather than others",
- "employing particular political strategies and tactics rather than others", and
- "affecting mainstream institutional politics and policy".[1]
One of the advantages of the political process theory is that it addresses the issue of timing or emergence of social movements. Some groups may have the insurgent consciousness and resources to mobilize, but because political opportunities are closed, they will not have any success. The theory, then, argues that all three of these components are important.
Critics of the political process theory and resource mobilization theory point out that neither theory discusses movement culture to any great degree. This has presented culture theorists an opportunity to expound on the importance of culture. In response to these criticisms, Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly proposed the Dynamics of Contention research program, which focuses on identifying mechanisms to explain political opportunities, rather than relying on an abstract structure.[5]
One advance on the political process theory is the political mediation model, which outlines the way in which the political context facing movement actors intersects with the strategic choices that movements make. An additional strength of this model is that it can look at the outcomes of social movements not only in terms of success or failure but also in terms of consequences (whether intentional or unintentional, positive or negative) and in terms of collective benefits.
Opposite of political opportunity is a political constraint.
See also
References
- ^ a b c d e David S. Meyer, Protest and Political Opportunities, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30: 125-145 (Volume publication date August 2004), (doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110545) [1]
- ^ a b c d Tarrow S. 1998 . Power in Movement . New York : Cambridge Univ. Press . 2nd ed.
- ^ Jereon Gunning, Hamas, democracy, religion and violence
- ^ Eisinger P . 1973 . The conditions of protest behavior in American cities . Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 81 : 11 – 28
- ^ McAdam D, Tarrow S, Tilly C. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press.
Further reading
- Meyer DS , Minkoff DC. 2004. Conceptualizing political opportunity. Soc. Forces.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
