Notes on Contemporary Protests and Theoretical Debates

  • Purpose of weeks 1–2: situate contemporary protests and social movements within society and introduce scholarly debates about doing politics
  • Tension between common-sense understandings of protests and scholarly definitions; provocative discussion of rioting vs. nonviolent protest
  • Questioning what counts as legitimate protest; who counts as a legitimate actor; and what forms of protest are considered acceptable or non-acceptable
  • Emphasis on examining range of protest tactics (from nonviolent to “extreme”) to understand the continuum of contentious politics
  • Personal stance: the instructor is disturbed by January 6 but uses it to illustrate debates about legitimacy, who participates, and how language frames events
  • Importance of language: terms like “Black Lives Matter uprising” vs. “January 6” reflect labeling choices and legitimacy concerns
  • Legitimacy as a central concept; recognition that legitimacy varies by who is speaking, who is protesting, and what actions are taken
  • Protests are part of a continuum from routine institutional politics (agitation within norms) to disruptive acts that challenge the political order
  • The readings aim to provide definitional clarity around terms and situate them in both legislative and policy contexts (e.g., First Amendment)
  • The readings juxtapose different theoretical approaches to understanding who participates and why, including extreme forms of protest and mutual aid within marginalized communities
  • Core theoretical tension: when does grievance translate into collective action? Is grievance alone enough to spur participation?
  • The instructor’s plan to connect macro- movements (organizations, institutions) with micro-level motivations and individual decisions to participate
  • Distinguishing between macro-level movements and individual motivations; both are linked and influence each other
  • The role of “who” is protesting: legitimacy and audience shape protests; different groups face different levels of repression based on race and gender presentation
  • The class uses examples and clips to discuss legitimacy, audience, and the potential for mutual aid vs. targeting of power structures
  • The readings include Chenoweth’s empirical work on nonviolent resistance and Osterweil’s controversial argument that looting can function as a tool for targeting racial capitalism and mutual aid; these perspectives are used in dialogue to understand dynamics of power and disruption
  • The policy and legal context (First Amendment, riot acts, etc.) shapes what counts as acceptable protest and the boundaries of nonstate actors' actions
  • The instructor posts PowerPoints and links weekly to supplement discussion
  • Discussion of “the room” dynamics: how classroom discussions and polls reflect contemporary repertoires of action and acceptable forms of protest
  • It is not enough to be angry; participation depends on costs and benefits, including risk, repertoires of action, and social consequences
  • The class will later examine the continuum of noncontentious to contentious actions and how people move along that continuum
  • The instructor emphasizes that participation is not simply a binary choice (participate vs. not); it involves stages and decision points influenced by social context, media framing, and organizational mobilization
  • Theoretical background reviewed: mass behavior theory (early collective behavior) vs. rational-choice approaches (resource mobilization) vs. cultural-process theories; the course emphasizes moving beyond one-size-fits-all explanations
  • The discussion traces historical theories of collective action to modern debates about protests, social movements, and radicalization
  • The instructor highlights three broad families of motivational theories
    • Frustration–Aggression/Mass Society theories: individual psychological strain leads to susceptibility to collective violence; linked to industrialization, urbanization, and disruptions of social fabric
    • Relative Deprivation theories: perceived gap between expected and actual life outcomes fuels grievance and mobilization
    • Instrumental/Rational actor approaches (e.g., Olson): individuals calculate costs and benefits; participation is deterred by free-rider problems and public goods dynamics
  • Free rider problem: individuals may benefit from a collective good without contributing; classic formulation from Olson (Logic of Collective Action, 1965)
  • Public goods concept: goods that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous; benefits accrue to all, making collective action challenging because individuals may under-contribute
  • Sanctions vs. selective incentives in mobilization theory
    • Sanctions: coercive pressure to participate (e.g., beating scabs, harassment, shaming, doxxing, exclusion)
    • Selective incentives: material or social benefits available only to participants (e.g., status, information access, networking, tangible rewards like merch or services)
  • Examples of selective incentives and sanctions discussed in class
    • Tangible membership benefits (e.g., AAA maps that are only available to members)
    • Public shaming or doxxing as social sanctions to coerce participation
    • Exclusion or expulsion from social groups or activist communities for nonparticipation
    • Status, information access, and solidarity/identity incentives as motivation to join
  • Distinctions among types of incentives
    • Material incentives: tangible rewards or services
    • Solidarity/identity incentives: belonging, authentic identity, signaling commitment to a cause
    • Information/influence incentives: access to lists, announcements, or insider knowledge
  • Critiques of rational-choice/resource-mobilization theory
    • It underemphasizes attitudes, values, commitments, and ideas; overly structural and individualistic
    • It may ignore social construction of movement goals and identities, and the cultural processes that frame tactics
    • It assumes action is isolated and individual; neglects social embeddedness and relational decision-making
  • Social embeddedness of decisions
    • Decisions to participate are influenced by social relationships and context; people often act with others or after being influenced by trusted peers
    • In classrooms and campuses, decisions to participate are shaped by friends, colleagues, and social networks
  • The role of media framing in shaping perceptions of protest
    • Media can shape public understanding of what protests are about and who is legitimate or illegitimate
    • The instructor emphasizes the power of framing in shaping the legitimacy of protesters
  • The dynamic between extremes and mainstream activism
    • Extreme actions (e.g., looting) can be framed as irrational or as tools for solidarity and mutual aid; debates persist about their strategic value and ethical implications
  • The historical pivot in the field of social movements
    • Early collective behavior theories emerged to explain mass protests in times of crisis (e.g., Depression era protests)
    • There was a shift toward rational-choice and resource-m mobilization approaches, which later got critiqued for neglecting cultural processes and emotional aspects of mobilization
    • The field now emphasizes differential participation, differential recruitment, and the mobilization potential of movements
  • The concept of mobilization potential and choice points
    • At any moment, some people are outside mobilization potential; others are sympathizers or potential activists
    • Organizers work to convert sympathizers into active participants by targeting messaging, reducing barriers, and leveraging social networks
    • Movement success depends on aligning individuals, groups, and institutions across multiple choice points
  • The instructor’s closing reflection
    • Acknowledgement that there is no single answer to what drives participation; it varies over time and across contexts
    • Emphasis on recognizing that each step toward participation involves a point of choice, and organizers have to manage those points effectively
  • Practical takeaways for the upcoming paper assignment
    • Students who interview folks about attitudes toward protests can use theoretical readings to interpret responses
    • The first paper assignment aims to apply the discussed frameworks to understand attitudes toward different forms of protest and legitimacy
  • Key terms and concepts mentioned for quick recall
    • Legitimacy, legitimacy of actors, who can protest (who is allowed to protest and who is considered legitimate)
    • Nonviolent vs. violent repertoire of protest
    • Repertoire: current set of protest tactics and acceptable actions in contemporary politics
    • First Amendment, riot acts, and policy contexts as boundaries for protest
    • Riots, looting, Black Lives Matter, January 6 as illustrative contrasts in legitimacy framing
    • Frustration–Aggression model; relative deprivation; mass society theory
    • Collective action theory (Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, 1965)
    • Public goods; free rider problem; exclusion vs non-exclusion
    • Sanctions, selective incentives, status/identity incentives, information incentives, solidarity incentives
    • Collective effervescence; emotional dimensions of mobilization
    • Mobilization potential and differential recruitment/participation
    • Diffusion from individual grievances to collective action; social construction of goals and tactics
  • Final takeaway: Understanding protests requires integrating multiple theories (emotional, rational, cultural), considering who is involved and why, and recognizing the social and political contexts that shape both participation and perception of legitimacy