Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Slides for Sociology W3480: Part 2 of 3 Revolutions, Social Movements, and Contentious Politics Columbia College Spring 2007 Prepared by Charles Tilly.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Slides for Sociology W3480: Part 2 of 3 Revolutions, Social Movements, and Contentious Politics Columbia College Spring 2007 Prepared by Charles Tilly."— Presentation transcript:

1 Slides for Sociology W3480: Part 2 of 3 Revolutions, Social Movements, and Contentious Politics Columbia College Spring 2007 Prepared by Charles Tilly and Ernesto Castañeda send questions to

2 Revolutions (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)2

3 Revolutions Revolution = forcible transfer of power over a state in the course of which at least two distinct 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. A full revolution combines a revolutionary situation with a revolutionary outcome. (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)3

4 Revolutionary Situations 1)contenders or coalitions of contenders advancing exclusive competing claims to control of the state or some segment of it: mobilization process. 2) commitment to those claims by a significant segment of the citizenry: mobilization plus diffusion 3) incapacity or unwillingness of rulers to suppress the alternative coalition and/or commitment to its claims: ruler-subject interaction (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)4

5 Revolutionary Outcomes 1)defections of regime members 2)acquisition of armed force by revolutionary coalitions 3)neutralization or defection of the regime’s armed force 4)control of the state apparatus by members of revolutionary coalition 5)transfer of state power to new ruling coalition. (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)5

6 CONFLICT, REVOLT, AND REVOLUTION 6(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)

7 How to Analyze Contentious Event Catalogues How to Analyze Contentious Event Catalogues Adapted from Tilly’s “How to Detect and Describe Performances and Repertoires” Chapter 2 of upcoming book “Contentious Performances” April 11 th, 2007 (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)7

8 Aerial Graph of Contention in Russia (based on Bessinger 2001). (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)8

9 Event Analysis The fundamental unit of analysis in this study is the contentious event. Event analysis is widely recognized as a tool for studying waves of mobilization. It is essentially a way of tracking over time the rise and fall of particular types of events and the features associated with them (Beissinger 2002: 42). (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)9

10 Different Soviet nationalities staged protest demonstrations month by month from 1987 through 1991 (Beissinger 2002: 84). For the most active, these were the peak months: ArmeniansMay 1988 EstoniansNovember 1988 MoldaviansFebruary 1989 RussiansJanuary 1990 Crimean TatarsApril 1990 UkrainiansNovember 1990 LatviansDecember 1990 LithuaniansDecember 1990 AzerbaijanisDecember 1990 GeorgiansSeptember 1991 (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)10

11 Results “In all, I have been able to identify thirty-two major waves of nationalist violence in the former USSR during the 1987-92 period, part of sixteen larger ethnonationalist conflicts involving violence during these years. Only in four of these conflicts (the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict, the Georgian- Ossetian conflict, the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, and the Moldovan-Transdniestr conflict) did violence become a self- sustaining strategy of contesting state boundaries, with relatively short waves of violence growing increasingly protracted over time. In all other cases, violent mobilization remained short-lived. What distinguished conflicts in which mass violence grew sustained from those in which violence ceased to proliferate was the relationship of state institutions to the production of violence” (Beissinger 2002: 309). (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)11

12 Graficas de violencia Source: Samuel González Ruiz Mexican specialist in comparative legal systems, in relation to the fight and prosecution of organized crime.

13 Increase of Violence in Mexico due to Organized Crime 13(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)

14 Reduction of Violence in Colombia 14(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)

15 Trends of Organized Crime in Ireland (not linked to terrorist organizations) 15(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)

16 Violence in Italy 16(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)

17 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000 Year Rates per 100.000 inhabitants “Concussione”Passive corruptionActive corruption Instigation to corruption Reported “corruption” offences - rates per 100.000 inhabitants (Italy 1989-2000) 17(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)

18 198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000 Year “Concussione”Passive corruptionActive corruption Instigation to corruption Rates per 100.000 inhabitants Convicted people for “corruption” offences - Rates per 100.000 inhabitants (Italy 1989-2000) 18

19 Organized Crime ↔ Corruption ↔ Obstruction of Justice = Escalation of Violence and Loss of State Capacity “ La relación entre la violencia, la corrupción y la obstrucción a la justicia son de protección directa de la delincuencia organizada y se configuran como un círculo exterior que protege el silencio o la oferta de las organizaciones criminales” (Gonzalez y Flores 2007). Source forthcoming as:. “Violencia, corrupción y narcotráfico: el desafío del México democrático. ”González Ruiz, Samuel y Carlos Flores.” Foreign Affairs en Español ▪ Volumen 7 Número 2. Special thanks to Samuel Ruiz for sharing his research and slides with the Mexican Graduate Student Groups at Conferences at Yale and Columbia. 19

20 Tarrow’s Italy Study Tarrow examined Italy’s cycle of protest from 1965 to 1975, for which the national newspaper Corriere della Sera yielded 4,980 “protest events”, non-routine actions in which the participants revealed a collective goal. Tarrow tells us, I collected information on ‘protest events’, a category which included strikes, demonstrations, petitions, delegations, and violence, but which excluded contentious behavior which revealed no collective claims on other actors. I defined the protest event as a disruptive direct action on behalf of collective interests, in which claims were made against some other group, elites, or authorities (Tarrow 1989: 359). Tarrow produced a record for each event. But he enriched the enterprise in two important ways: First, he incorporated textual descriptions at a number of critical points – summaries of events, grievances, policy responses, and more. That made it possible to refine his classified counts without returning to the original newspaper sources. Second, within the record he placed checklists where two or more features could coexist. As a result, he was able to analyze not only the overall distribution of events but also the frequency of such features as different forms of violence – clashes with police, violent conflict, property damage, violent attacks, rampages, and random violence (Tarrow 1989: 78). (Taken from Tilly Contentious Repertoires. Forthcoming [It has now appeared in Cambridge university Press. 2008]). 20

21 (Source: Tilly and Tarrow 2007) 21

22 Tilly’s Great Britain Study Over about ten years, research groups at the University of Michigan and the New School for Social Research worked with me to create a systematic body of evidence on actions, interactions, performances, repertoires, and their settings in Great Britain between 1758 and 1834. The central data set we produced includes machine-readable descriptions for 8,088 contentious gatherings (CGs) that occurred in southeastern England (Kent, Middlesex, Surrey, or Sussex) during thirteen selected years from 1758 to 1820, or anywhere in Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales, but not Ireland) from 1828 to 1834. In this study, a CG is an occasion on which ten or more people gathered in a publicly- accessible place and visibly made claims which, if realized, would affect the interests of at least one person outside their number. In principle, CGs include almost all events that authorities, observers, or historians of the time would have called "riots" or "disturbances" as well as even more that would fall under such headings as "public meeting", "procession" and "demonstration". Our standardized descriptions of CGs come from periodicals: the Annual Register, Gentleman's Magazine, London Chronicle, Morning Chronicle, Times, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Mirror of Parliament, and Votes and Proceedings of Parliament; we read these periodicals exhaustively for the years in question plus January-June 1835. Although we frequently consulted both published historical work and archival sources such as the papers of the Home Office in interpreting our evidence, the machine-readable descriptions transcribed material from the periodicals alone. We did not try to find every event about which information was available or even a representative sample of such events. Instead, we assembled a complete enumeration of those described in standard periodicals whose principles of selection we could examine, and sometimes even test. (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)22

23 Tilly’s Great Britain Study Tilly laced computer-stored records for Contentious Events into separate sections and provided: a general description of each event (8,088 machine-readable records) a description of each formation -- each person or set of persons who acted distinguishably during the event (27,184 records) supplementary information on the geographical or numerical size of any formation, when available (18,413 records) a summary of each distinguishable action by any formation, including the actor(s), the crucial verb, (where applicable) the object of the action, and an excerpt of the text(s) from which we drew actor, verb, and object (50,875 records) excerpts from detailed texts from which we drew summary descriptions of actions (76,189 records) identification of each source of the account (21,030 records) identification of each location in which the action occurred (11,054 records) a set of verbal comments on the event, or on difficulties in its transcription (5,450 records) special files listing all alternative names for formations and all individuals mentioned in any account (28,995 formation names, 26,318 individual names) Except for straightforward items such as date, day of the week, and county names, the records do not contain codes in the usual sense of the term. On the whole, we transcribed words from the texts or (when that was not feasible) paraphrases of those words. Think of formation names: Instead of coding names given to formations in broad categories, we transcribed the actual words used in our sources. For example, the transcription of each action includes the actor’s name, a verb characterizing the action, and (in the roughly 52 percent of cases in which there was an object) the object’s name. (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)23

24 Subject – Verb - Object (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)24

25 Source: Tilly. Contentious Performances Chapter 2. Unpublished draft 2007. (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)25

26 (Tilly & Castañeda 2007) 26

27 27

28 Over-represented Verb Categories* by Broad Type of Gathering, Great Britain, 1758-1834 authorized celebrations (78 CGs): bracket, celebrate, cheer, dine, enter, gather, observe, proceed, receive delegations (79): address, bracket, deliberate, gather, negotiate, proceed, receive, support parades, demonstrations, rallies (142): attempt, block, bracket, celebrate, cheer, decry, dine, enter, gather, march, negotiate, observe, oppose, other, proceed, receive, support, vote pre-planned meetings of named associations (985): dine, hear petition, meet, petition pre-planned meetings of public assemblies (3197): none other pre-planned meetings (1672): dine, meet strikes, turnouts (76): attack, attempt, block, control, deliberate, donkey, gather, hear petition, march, move, negotiate, observe, other, proceed, resist, turnout attacks on blacklegs (27): attack, block, control, decry, die, enter, fight, gather, move, observe, turnout brawls in drinking places (24): attack, attempt, block, bracket, celebrate, control, deliberate, dine, enter, fight, gather, give, move, negotiate, request, resist, turnout market conflicts (12): address, block, gather, negotiate, oppose, other, proceed, request, support poachers vs. gamekeepers (71): attack, attempt, block, bracket, control, deliberate, die, disperse, enter, fight, gather, hunt, move, negotiate, observe, other, proceed smugglers vs. customs (49): attack, attempt, block, bracket, celebrate, control, die, fight, gather, give, move, observe, other, proceed, resist, smuggle other violent gatherings (1156): attack, attempt, block, bracket, control, decry, enter, fight, gather, give, march, move, negotiate, observe, petition, proceed, resist other unplanned gatherings (520): block, celebrate, cheer, control, decry, demonstrate, enter, gather, march, move, negotiate, observe, other, proceed * over-represented = 2+ times the proportion in all gatherings or (in the case of end and meet, which appear in 73 and 54 percent of all gatherings respectively) 20%+ more than their general proportions (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)28

29 From Hector Forero’s Student Memorandum 29(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)

30 Takeshi Wada Wada (Wada 2003, 2004) drew accounts of protest events from the daily newspapers Excélsior, Unomásuno, and La Jornada for 29-day periods spanning national elections over the 37 years, a total of 13 electoral periods. From the newspapers he identified 2832 events, some linked together in campaigns, for a total of 1797 campaigns. Wada’s subject-verb-object-claim transcriptions made it possible for him to employ sophisticated network models of who made claims on whom. Overall, they reveal a sharp politicization of Mexico’s collective claim making as the country’s partial democratization proceeded. From claims on business, landowners, and universities, protesters moved to making increasingly strong claims on the government itself. According to Wada’s analysis, the weakening of network ties among the elite (especially as concentrated within the longtime ruling party PRI) provided an opportunity for claimants to divide their rulers. It thus advanced the partial democratization of the 1990s. Technically, Wada broke free of many restrictions imposed by classified event counts. That technical freedom opened the way to a sophisticated treatment of interaction in Mexican politics. Source: Wada, Takeshi (2003): “A Historical and Network Analysis of Popular Contention in the Age of Globalization in Mexico,” unpublished doctoral dissertation in sociology, Columbia University. (2004): “Event Analysis of Claim Making in Mexico: How Are Social Protests Transformed into Political Protests,” Mobilization 9: 241-258. (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)30

31 Lessons The innovations of Tilly, McPhail, Tarrow, Franzosi, Beissinger, Wada and others offer three lessons for analysts of contentious politics: First, it is practically feasible to record and analyze the internal dynamics of episodes instead of settling for classified event counts. Second, the recording of particular verbs rather than general characterization of the action is crucial for that practical purpose. Third, verbs with objects make it possible to move from individualistic analyses to treatments of connections among contentious actors (relational). (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)31

32 Extra lecture: What Happened in Oaxaca? Triangulating Outside Witness Accounts to Analyze the Contentious Politics in Oaxaca, Mexico Nayeli Chavez-Geller, UNIVISION Rene Ramos, MPA Student SIPA Columbia Ivania de la Cruz Orozco, MPA Student SIPA Columbia Manuela Garza, The New School and Fundación Comunitaria Oaxaca Ernesto Castañeda-Tinoco, PhD Student Department of Sociology, Columbia Leslie A. Martino, PhD Student, Department of Sociology, CUNY, The Graduate Center Thursday April 12th, 2007. Organized by Mexican Initiative Co-sponsored by the Institute of Latin American Studies, LASA-SIPA, and ALAS-TC. For this see extra Lecture file 4.

33 Move to file number 3 for the rest of the course material. (Tilly & Castañeda 2007)33

Download ppt "Slides for Sociology W3480: Part 2 of 3 Revolutions, Social Movements, and Contentious Politics Columbia College Spring 2007 Prepared by Charles Tilly."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google