Relative Deprivation and Social Movements: A Critical Look at Twenty Years of Theory and Research

Abstract

The relative deprivation perspective was widely employed in the social movement literature of the late 1960s and early 1970s. In spite of the growing popularity of some newer approaches which criticize the relative deprivation perspective (resource mobilization or resource management perspectives), there have been no attempts to analyze and evaluate the relative deprivation perspective in any systematic fashion.The purpose of this paper is to review some of the "classic" relative deprivation literature in order to critically assess the perspective on the basis of its theoretical coherence and clarity and its empirical validity. The general conclusion reached is that while the relative deprivation perspective was an advance over earlier approaches which viewed social movements as resulting from the expression of irrational impulses, the relative deprivation perspective is itself affected by too many serious conceptual, theoretical, and empirical weaknesses to be useful in accounting for the emergence and development of social movements.01982 by The Sociological Quarterly. All rights reserved. 0038-0253/82/1600-0033$00.75 *The authors thank the following persons for their critical comments on several earlier versions of this paper: E. L. Quarantelli, Bill Roy, and Patrick J. Gurney. We also express appreciation to the anonymous reviewers whose comments were helpful in refining several sections of the paper.

Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives.

“…RDT came under attack in the seventies by scholars arguing that a subjective sense of injustice is not sufficient for collective action to occur (Finkel & Rule, 1987;Gurney & Tierney, 1982;McPhail, 1971; for reviews, see Ferree & Miller, 1985;Klandermans, 1989;Walker & Smith, 2002). Building on the argument that social inequality and discrimination exist in almost all societies and are therefore too pervasive and general to predict collective action, resource mobilization theorists proposed that the mobilization of resources by quasi-political organizations is key to moving people to action (e.g., McCarthy & Zald, 1977; see also Gamson, 1975;Oberschall, 1973;Tilly, 1978).…”

“…Each of these constructs stems from its own distinct theoretical tradition, and these schools of thought have sometimes been portrayed as providing conflicting explanations for collective action (e.g., Finkel & Rule, 1987;Gurney & Tierney, 1982;Walker & Smith, 2002). More recently, however, some attempts at theoretical integration have been made (e.g., Kawakami & Dion, 1995;Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996;Klandermans, 1984Klandermans, , 1997Klandermans, , 2004Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999;Stürmer & Simon, 2004a).…”

'The People Want the Fall of the Regime': Schooling, Political Protest, and the Economy

“…The various interpretations of our evidence that we offer combine elements of the "resource" view that links socioeconomic status (such as education) with political engagement (e.g., , as well as of the "disaffection" view of political protest (e.g., Gurr 1970). The interaction with relative income performance also ties in with a longstanding sociological literature that links political protest with concepts such as "relative deprivation" and "status inconsistency" (e.g., Lenski 1954;also, see Orum 1974 or Gurney andTierney 1982 for critical appraisals).…”

El malestar en los estudios sobre movimientos sociales / The place of malaise in social movement studies

“…El punto de partida de esta perspectiva es que no podemos contentarnos con mirar las grandes estructuras sociales y sus contradicciones y esperar respuestas. Pero tampoco podemos sostener, como sugiere el enfoque de privación relativa (Gurney y Tierney, 1982) que detrás de los movimientos sociales existe un malestar insoportable que se acumula hasta que alcanza su punto de ebullición y explota. El punto es precisamente saber por qué y cómo se produce esa "explosión" (si es que ocurre) en determinado momento y no en otro, por qué involucra o moviliza a ciertos actores y no a otros, en lugares específicos y no en otros y, aún más importante, por qué se expresa políticamente en una dirección emancipadora y/o transformadora y no como pura violencia.…”