Dan Blazo
Jeffery Berejikian contributes to the cross-discipline integration of research on the causes of social revolutions in, “Revolutionary Collective Action and the Agent-Structure Problem.” Berejikian highlights longstanding dilemmas within the Rational Choice and Methodological Structuralism approaches. The strength of this article is its specificity in exposing the theoretical shortcomings of each approach in the context of describing dramatic social events; particularly revolutions. Using Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions as an example of Methodological Structuralism, Berejikian exposes several theoretical deficiencies—namely the failure to account for the free-riding tendency in the relationship between strictly individualist action and collective action. Rational-choice explanations of social revolutions, as epitomized in Popkin’s Rational Peasant, fail to represent the role of individual decisionmaking in the inception of a revolutionary movement. The exposed theoretical inconsistencies are presented as examples of “inattention to the agent-structure problem” (647).
The theoretical caveats emphasized by Berejikian represent complementary shortfalls of the two approaches. In other words, each methodology successfully accounts for the hole in the other’s theory. Therefore, a collaborative “meta-theory” offers a more inclusive scope while accounting for the theoretical deficiencies of the each "sub-approach." Moreover, Berjikian illustrates how careful examination of theoretical constructs is a necessary component of academic progress. This tenet applies as much to quantitative research as qualitative, though such research does not typically require quantitative analysis.
In “Bowling Alone,” however, the scientific rigor exemplified by Berejikian is withheld. Rather than introducing hypotheses and developing a model to test them, Robert Putman employs an arbitrary conglomeration of statistics to strengthen his initial assertions. While the cited statistics are certainly relevant to the discussion, the significance of the particular data is unclear and unexplained. For example, the author cites the membership trends of the Elks, Lions, Boy Scouts, Masons, Red Cross, and other groups, but fails to show that these groups are representative of the larger trends. They may be excellent indicators indeed, but the academic reader is left wondering: How many members are in each group? Are these examples typical for all similar groups? How do these statistics complement one another, and which are more indicative of the alleged trends than others? I consider this article to be more journalistic than scientific. Since the alleged trends lack a consensus among researchers, only a scientific approach can adequately refute the opposition.
Norris et al.’s article, “Who Demonstrates?” argues that civic engagement in developed democracies (including the U.S.) has actually been on the rise since the 1980s. This contention is supported by empirical evidence accumulated through surveys and represents a scientific assessment of the research topic. In contrast to Putman’s indicators, civic engagement is measured by participation in demonstrations. More citizens participate in demonstrations than in previous decades in nearly every nation analyzed. The focus of this article, however, is more concerned with the demographic trends and components of those individuals actively demonstrating. The research offers valuable insights of demonstration participants, but lacks an empirical evaluation of the significance of political demonstrations.
Spencer Wellhofer addresses the social components of democratic sustainability by evaluating the downfall of democratic rule in Fascist Italy. This analysis aims to explain the social composition and transformation of the Fascist Party’s core constituency. In doing so, the authors account for some of the factors that led to the historical failure of democratic rule. Of the three approaches considered in light of extensive evidence (primarily of voter demographics), the Rational Choice model receives the strongest support. Class Theory fails the empirical tests while Civil Society Theory receives mixed results. In short, Tocqueville’s veneration of the American civic spirit is unsupported by the evidence, while Machiavelli’s vision of of self-interestedness and hierarchical subjugation withstands scientific examination.
For a relevant example of civic engagement and political demonstration at Ole Miss, see: Rebels Resisting Apartheid.
0 comments:
Post a Comment