Lecture 10: collective violence between civilians and the state (1): violent protests Flashcards
Della Porta’s criticism on political violence
A lot of research about political violence is focused on reducing terrorism violence, and NOT on political violence in general.
Decolonisation
Decolonisation is by definition a violent process. The colonised have the right and duty to use violence: all means are permitted in colonial struggle. This is a liberatory motivation for violence, because there is replacement of one group by another, which is not possible without violence. The violence of the colonised unifies people.
People that argue that violence is never permitted
Ghandi, Marthen Luther King, Nelson Mandela
“Nonviolence is not a sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation.”
Different theories that explain violence during protests
- Crowd psychology
- Relative deprivation theory (and J-curve hypothesis)
- Political opportunity theory
- Emotions as explanations for violence
(1) Crowd psychology (Le Bon)
Protest violence is reflexive and irrational. He reduces emotions to pure biology and contrasts them with rationality: “this kind of emotional response when people are in a collective is irrational, and counter to their interests”.
Early social movement studies
Opposed the theory of Le Bon by viewing protests (and also violence) as rational and said that violence and disruption can be used strategically: protest violence is a question of opportunities (change) and costs (arrest).
(2) Relative deprivation theory
Out of early social movement studies, the relative deprivation became popular. This theory states that protest violence tends to follow from peoples grievances: people who feel deprived of something (like about living- and economic circumstances).
Violent protests are most likely to occur according to the J-curve hypothesis.
J-curve hypothesis (Davies)
Based on the relative deprivation theory.
Davies said that violent protest is most likely to occur in this specific situation:
1. A period of rising expectations and rising gratifications.
2. This is followed by a sharp reversal, which creates a gap between expectations/ gratifications and the reality (acceptable gap).
3. When this gap widens quickly, this become intolerable (unacceptable gap).
4. This frustration seeks an outlet in violent action.
–> This creates an upside-down J-curve.
Criticism of the relative deprivation theory and J-curve hypothesis
- Frustration does not necessarily lead to violence. Frustration is also often linked with resignation (renouncing form political engagement).
- Limited attention to the interactional dynamics during a protest (like between the police and the protesters).
(3) Political opportunity theory (Tarrow, McAdam, Tilly)
Political opportunity is the biggest motivator for protests and for protest violence. Social movements and violent develop not due to grievances itself, but due to changes in the political context that allow these grievances to be heard. This can be due to 4 factors:
1. Increasing political pluralism/division: because power dynamics are shifting.
2. Decline in repression: can be a new government.
3. Division within elites: gives opportunity to appeal to certain elites.
4. Increased political enfranchisement (giving of a right or privilege): having a better position to protest (like people getting more rights).
(4) Constructivist/ cultural perspective (critique on theories 1, 2 and 3)
Social movements don’t always have a stable protest identity (who are we as a social movement), and collective goals and collective identity can change over time. Collective identity is not only the cause of mobilisation, but often the results of protests.
Della Porta’s views on the development of protest violence
Della Porta says that:
- Radical ideologies cause radical violence ONLY when political opportunities trigger escalation.
- State repression causes martyrs, myths, and injustice frames.
- Violence is often the outcome of a cycle of protest.
- Protests radicalise at the sideline (often during street battles with the police and with opponents).
- Interactional and processual perspective: testing of hard techniques, radial sectors of movements and counter-movement.
- But also movements internally enforce non-violence.
Most important insights from Della Porta:
- She proposes to look at cultural processes in the development of protest violence.
- She also looks at the role of emotions as an explanation for violent protests.
- Social movements (including violent ones) are internally divided, not only ideologically but also with respect to the use of violent strategies.
(Example: many social movements have active strategies to enforce non-violence, as leaders are afraid that some members may divert from that.)
Moral Shocks (Jasper, 1995)
New information about something (like about nuclear weapons) can create a moral shock. This can appeal to new recruits and to activate existing networks.
He said that this can create different types of emotions:
- Reflexive: like fear.
- Moods: long term emotions.
- Moral emotions: strongly shaped by moral ideas about the world (like guilt).
The mechanism of emotion in violent protest (Johnston) (Relational perspective)
Emotions shape protesters and police violence. We need to look at it from a relational perspective between the protesters and the police. Emotions can change the assessment of costs of the action.
Mechanisms:
1. Fear abatement
2. Anger spiral
Scattered attacks
Violent attacks breaking out from a larger, mostly non-violent protest.
