1. SOCI 3006 – Collective Behaviour May 2007 Lecture 3

2. 1. Administrative make sure you are on course list grading options expectations for essay essay topic suggestions

3. 2. Value Added Theory Smelser (1962) – Theory of Collective Behavior strong foundation in Structural-Functionalism – and the idea that collective behaviour serves a ‘function’ in society focus on social structural/social institutional sources of strain the causes of social action are social, not psychological the notion of ‘collective seizures’, a release of collective strain

4. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) basic components of Smelser’s ‘value added theory’ 1.The causes of collective behaviour can be known 2.The causes of collective behaviour are social 3.Collective behaviour is driven by a collective experience of strain 4.A number of conditions must be present for the collective behaviour to take place: structural conduciveness, structural strain, generalized belief, precipitating factors, mobilization of participants, social control see page 40 for outline of Smelser’s theory

5. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) according to Smelser, all social behaviour is driven by one of four components of social action; 1.Values – general, provide legitimacy for behaviour, provide framework for goal-oriented actions 2.Norms – guidelines for social behaviour in specific circumstances – can be formal or informal 3. Individual Mobilization for Action – individual actions that are initiated and unfold within pre-existing social structures and institutions 4.Situational Facilities – means and obstacles that facilitate or hinder attainment of goals – tools, skills, knowledge

6. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) “values guide what we as a society desire, norms guide how we go about getting what we desire, individual motivation guides the structure or organization that we create in order to achieve that which we desire, and situational facilities guide how successful we are in achieving it” E.g. – financial independence, respect, beauty, family For any form of social action we can ask: what values legitimate this action?

7. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) the ‘value-added’ process and the collective behaviour process: 1.Structural Conduciveness: the conditions in society that promote this novel behaviour – inequality, boredom, lack of social programs, exams, time of year (e.g. Sauble), weather conditions, time of day, presence of alcohol/drugs, social characteristics of participants (e.g. young males; the poor), demographic make-up of society 2.Structural Strain: driving participants to engage in unusual (non-normative) behaviour – poverty, loss of a job, discrimination, natural disaster, war, sudden changes in social circumstances (anomie/anxiety), aging and retirement, etc.

8. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) 3. Generalized belief: participants must share a common ‘definition of the situation’ – making a particular course of action seem logical or unavoidable. The definition of the situation may be true or untrue – what matters is that it is accepted by the participants, and forms the basis for action -Hysterical beliefs (sun-church worshippers in Quebec) -Wish-fulfillment beliefs (stock market speculation, crazes) -Hostile beliefs (scapegoating, witch-hunts) -Norm-oriented beliefs (war on drugs, McCarthyism) -Value-oriented beliefs (cults, revolution, fundamentalism)

9. 2. Value Added Theory (cont’d) 4. Precipitating factors: an occurrence that sparks the beginning of the episode of collective behaviour – e.g. an arrest, or death, episode of racism, etc. 5. Mobilization of participants: ability to reach participants, gather them together (physically or virtually), ability to communicate, leadership 6. Social control: the counter-response of the agents of social control, the ‘status-quo’ Deterrence: controls aimed at stopping the episode Accommodation: acceptance of the episode Redirection: redirect or ‘co-opt’ the episode

10. 3. Criticisms of Value Added Theory functionalist bias too rigid - assumes value added approach must be completed in a set order may allow prediction too structural