Grievances and the Genesis of Rebellion

Abstract

Rebellious collective action is rare, but it can occur when subordinates are severely discontented and other circumstances are favorable. The possibility of rebellion is a check—sometimes the only check—on authoritarian rule. Although mutinies in which crews seized control of their vessels were rare events, they occurred throughout the Age of Sail. To explain the occurrence of this form of high-risk collective action, this article holds that shipboard grievances were the principal cause of mutiny. However, not all grievances are equal in this respect. We distinguish between structural grievances that flow from incumbency in a subordinate social position and incidental grievances that incumbents have no expectation of suffering. Based on a case-control analysis of incidents of mutiny compared with controls drawn from a unique database of Royal Navy voyages from 1740 to 1820, in addition to a wealth of qualitative evidence, we find that mutiny was most likely to occur when structural grievances were combined with incidental ones. This finding has implications for understanding the causes of rebellion and the attainment of legitimate social order more generally.

Understanding digital natives in contentious politics: Explaining the effect of social media on protest participation through psychological incentives

“…Similarly, Van Zomeren et al (2004) show that group-based anger is an important motivator of protest participation. Finally, Hechter et al (2016) propose the theoretical distinction between structural grievances and incidental grievances, with the former indicating structural disadvantages and the latter regarding grievances triggered by immediate events. As they show in the case of the Royal Navy, mutiny was more likely under conditions of incidental grievances.…”

Számítanak az elvek is? Az elégedetlenség szerepe a politikai tiltakozásokban

“…Habár a politikai kollektív cselekvésekben való részvétel egyik triviális magyarázótényezője az elégedetlenség, az elmúlt időszakokban a kutatók elsőrendűen az erőforrásokra, valamint a társadalmi mozgalmak keretezési (framing) gyakorlataira helyezték a hangsúlyt, háttérbe szorítva az elégedetlenség tényezőjét (Hechter-Pfaff-Underwood 2016). Az említett kutatási irányok termékenységével természetesen mi is tisztában vagyunk, de ennek ellenére úgy véljük, hogy a tüntetések, a protest politikai cselekvések vizsgálatában az elégedetlenségnek továbbra is helye kell legyen.…”

Justified in their Actions: A Historiographic Analysis of the Causes of the Spithead and Nore Mutinies of 1797

“…On the other hand, incidental grievances "arise from wholly unanticipated situations that put groups at risk." 49 For the eighteenth-century navy, these would have included issues such as excessive punishment, disease, and incompetent officers, issues that were much more likely to threaten the survival of the ships' company as a whole. 50 Despite issues with the sociological modeling they used in their analysis, Hechter et al still managed to argue quite effectively that mutiny was much more likely when incidental and structural grievances coincided.…”

“…49 For the eighteenth-century navy, these would have included issues such as excessive punishment, disease, and incompetent officers, issues that were much more likely to threaten the survival of the ships' company as a whole. 50 Despite issues with the sociological modeling they used in their analysis, Hechter et al still managed to argue quite effectively that mutiny was much more likely when incidental and structural grievances coincided. In effect, this answered the major issue that Conrad Gill raised over a century earlier, of how grievances that had existed for decades or longer could play a role in such a sudden breakdown of order and discipline.…”

“…Despite the fairly limited addition to our understanding of the causes of the Spithead and Nore Mutinies, much of what Hechter et al argued in their first article is still relevant to the wider historical discussion. 53 Their very argument for choosing to ignore the Great Mutinies directly conflicted with Frykman's belief that mutinies cannot be studied in isolation, suggesting that Frykman's argument was not taken for granted within the field. This also questioned Frykman's own criticism of the "great man myth," as the presence or absence of incidental grievances often came down to the action or inaction of a single person, usually the commanding officer.…”